12

Recent Issues in International Relations

Astudy of international relations deals with several emerging issues that have a profound impact on international politics, economy, security and environment. In a complex and changing international order, issues like globalization, terrorism, energy or ecology have assumed increased significance and require careful academic analysis. In fact, no discourse on IR is now complete without any reference to these important issues. In this concluding chapter, these emerging issues in IR are taken up for sincere analysis; it starts with the issue of globalization, a much debated and significant aspect of the present world.

Globalization

Meaning of the Term

It is indeed impossible, and perhaps improper to provide a fixed definition of globalization because the term is used in economic, social, political, cultural and many other areas. We come across phrases like ‘globalization of civil society’, ‘globalization of American culture’ or ‘globalization of cricket’. In such phrases, the worldwide expansion of, let us say, American culture or of cricket, have been emphasized. In that sense, globalization refers to the worldwide presence and importance of a certain phenomenon, like civil society, or cricket, or American culture. But having kept all these myriad meanings of globalization in mind, we must note that in the study of IR, the economic and political connotations of globalization are important. In fact, if one says that globalization is primarily an economic concept, one would not be wrong. In today’s world, globalization primarily refers to economic activities which have serious impact on political and social spheres. In these examples, if one says that globalization of American culture or cricket has economic interests involved, one would not be wrong again. With the ascendance of liberal economy over mercantilist economy since the early 1980s, the term globalization has assumed increasing popularity and usage, and primarily refers to economic activities on a worldwide basis.

Globalization today mainly refers to expansion of economic activities like trade, and movement of capital and goods and labour, beyond borders. The socio-political impact of such economic activities can hardly be ignored. The process of globalization may affect domestic as well as international economy, and may have spill-over repercussions on national and international politics. For example, business process outsourcing (BPO) from the United States to India created political controversy in the United States and became a campaign issue in the 2008 presidential elections. Similarly, the growing popularity of Japanese automobile and electronic goods in the United States was a matter of concern for the Americans. Further, the controversy over the merits and demerits of globalization is very livid in international politics. Considering all these issues associated with the term, a workable (not fixed in any sense) definition of globalization may be provided:

The term ‘globalization’ primarily refers to economic activities like trade, movement of capital, goods, labour, and communication system across boundaries facilitating higher levels of interconnectedness in the world. These economic activities have great impact on socio-political sectors nationally and internationally.

The ubiquitous and influential nature of (economic) globalization has led to the use of the term in every other area, like globalization of baseball, globalization of rock music, globalization of civil society or globalization of Hindi films. The term is used today in all activities on a worldwide scale.

Globalization: Different Views

With increasing popularity and importance of globalization, the term globalization drew different and contradictory views from different scholars around the world. One view that supports globalization and mainly comes from the rich industrial North, holds that globalization has benefited the world immensely. The idea of the integrated global market helps the rich and the poor at the same time. According to this view, if the rich get cheap labour from the global market, the poor would have continuous access to capital and goods. The growing access to markets worldwide would help the rich and the poor alike. Supporters of this view believe that globalization has ultimately brought the fruits of liberal economy to people all over the world. Free and competitive trade would break the shackles of state-controlled, subsidized, idle economy that is not growth-oriented. The process of globalization would ultimately integrate national economies into an interconnected global market, and the fruits of this interconnectedness could be shared by all states, rich and poor. A free, growth-centered, liberal economy would help the poor state to move on the path of unprecedented economic development, thereby narrowing the gap between the rich and the poor. The supporters of globalization also believe that from an economic point of view, national boundaries are becoming less important. The global market is making national geography irrelevant. Today, an increase in the price of petroleum in the global market can hit Indian domestic kitchens. Further, any embargo on BPO to India by the US government may affect American private business as the cost of labour would then go up in the United States. So if India, a poor country, suffers in the first example, the United States, a rich nation, gets affected in the second example. Thus globalization is a great leveller, claim the supporters of globalization.

The benefits of globalization, according to its supporters, can be best observed through the revolution in information technology (IT) in recent years. The IT revolution has indeed made the world very small, facilitating unprecedented levels of communication around the globe. Every part of the world, rich or poor, is enjoying the fruits of this IT revolution. An e-mail bridges the North and the South of the world within seconds; a great deal of information in almost all areas, from medical sciences to tourism, to movies, to higher education, is exchanged daily across the world. This revolution has also given a boost to trade and commercial activities all over the world, according to supporters of globalization. For instance, N. R. Narayana Murthy, the founder of Infosys Technologies Limited, and a pioneer of IT revolution in India, had stated in clear terms that economic liberalization in India (in 1991) had proved to be a boon for IT and software industries, and many other industries in India.¹ The IT revolution has also increased interconnectedness in the world to a great extent, paving ways for greater economic and social cooperation across the globe. It also posed a challenge to the concepts of state-controlled economy, state boundary and state sovereignty which had become vulnerable due to the IT boom.

A second view, which mainly comes from the underdeveloped South and from some scholars of the advanced North, criticizes globalization and its ways for the economic woes of the world. According to these critics, the fruits of globalization are not enjoyed universally, but mainly by the rich states, due to their superior control over the flow of capital and the communication system. The North–South divide has not been obliterated; on the contrary, it is very much pronounced and visible in today’s world. Millions of people are still excluded from the purview of globalization, and they suffer in silence. The view that an integrated world market has replaced national economy is altogether wrong. The state still has, and must retain, enough control over the national economy in the third world to move it towards people’s benefit. A profit-oriented global market can never think of the benefit of all the people in the world; only a state-guided national economy can think of the benefit of the indigenous people. Globalization, according to these critics, has not generated an unbiased, integrated, free world market; it has rather created antagonistic, rival, regional economic blocs in Europe, America and Asia. These regional economic blocs would fight against one another for the control of markets in different parts of the world. Therefore, principles of free trade, that regional economic groups claim to follow, must not be seen as a boon; they may actually lead to more squabbles in the world.

A third view comes from a group of scholars who believe that the problem lies not with globalization itself, but with how it has been managed. These scholars believe that globalization, if managed properly, can be immensely beneficial for the people. The notion of globalization only as an economic activity must be changed to make it more humane. As Joseph Stiglitz, a leading proponent of this view writes:

One of the reasons globalization is being attacked is that it seems to undermine traditional values… . Economic growth—including that induced by globalization—will result in urbanization, undermining traditional rural societies. Unfortunately, so far, those responsible for managing globalization, while praising these positive benefits, all too often have shown an insufficient appreciation of this adverse side, the threat to cultural identity and values.²

Stiglitz therefore recommends ‘globalization with a more human face’ to reap its benefits. Sincere reshaping of the current form of globalization is required to give it a more human face. The changes that he suggests for reshaping the current form of globalization are: (1) reforming the international financial system with drastic changes in the work of the global financial institutions like the IMF, the WTO and the World Bank; (2) adopting policies for sustainable, equitable and democratic growth; and (3) altering the capitalist view of ‘development’ where the industrially advanced countries ‘guide’ the process of development of the weaker nations. The less-advanced countries must assume responsibility for their own development. Globalization, if properly managed, can boost democracy, civil society and sustainable development with a human face, believes Stiglitz.

Contradictory views on globalization reflect people’s interest in it all over the world. Globalization aroused the interest of scholars as well as the common man because it touches everybody’s daily life. Very few concepts have generated so much interest and controversy in recent years as globalization had done. This phenomenon has made an enormous impact on international and domestic trade, democracy, civil society and the notion of sovereignty of the state. This idea of state sovereignty faced a new challenge with the march of globalization. Global free trade and communication revolution, among other phenomena, posed a threat to the state. The next section of this chapter analyses the position of the nation-state vis-à-vis globalization.

Globalization and Sovereignty of the State

Globalization, with emphasis on an integrated and interconnected world, is believed to have dealt a severe blow to the concept of state sovereignty. The free movement of capital, goods and labour around the world; the free flow of communication across state boundaries; the mighty presence of the MNCs; and related events have raised questions about the supremacy of the notion of sovereignty of the state. It is believed that in this age of free trade and communication revolution, the role of the state has been minimized. With increasing and strong presence of non-state actors like the MNCs, the NGOs and the IGOs, the once-powerful state is no longer in a position to exert its strong control over economic, social, and trans-national activities. Also, the demand for a limited state—once the leading demand behind laissez faire—has been rejuvenated in the West, because, according to the proponents of globalization, free trade requires a minimal state. Further, the state has limited control over the world wide web of communication, and related information system; it has practically no control over intercontinental ballistic missiles that can strike targets with immaculate precision across boundaries. Therefore, according to the supporters of globalization, the state has been rendered helpless in many situations, and the notion of state sovereignty has become vulnerable in our times.

Elements of truism could be found in these arguments. Due to the pressure of external and internal forces, the state has been facing a crisis precisely since the Second World War. With the advent of nuclear weapons, the expanding commercial activities of the MNCs, and the international financial system introduced by the Bretton Woods Conference, the state began to face external competitors after the Second World War. Internally, the maturity of the civil society, the unprecedented rise of pressure and interest groups, and growing politicization of the society, challenged the supremacy of the state after the war. Consequently, the notion of the state as the all-important controlling power in the society started to erode. Further, in the era of globalization—that began in the 1980s, in the modern sense of the term—the concept of an integrated world based on trade without barriers, and the spectacular IT revolution made the world a truly small place. The state also appeared to be small in terms of its power as it had little control over the course of international trade, and communication flow. Moreover, the growing menace of international terrorism, and in some countries, internal terrorism, also made the state appear helpless and vulnerable. All these factors made the idea of the impenetrable state a phenomenon of the past.

It is true that in an interconnected world, the state can never remain isolated to enjoy its absolute sovereignty over groups, citizens, associations and institutions. The state needs to follow the international economic, political or environmental order to remain engaged internationally. It is almost impossible for a state to ignore the international economic or political regulations. Isolation is almost impossible in today’s world. But having noted all these, it must be mentioned that the state is not completely lost today. Apart from retaining its sovereign control over revenue collection, currency, defence and foreign policy, the state also retains its sovereign voice as far as international economic or political regimes are concerned. The state has the right to oppose, and if necessary reject, any stipulation imposed by the UNO or the WTO, or the IMF. But one important factor must be remembered at this point—the state referred to is not a homogenous category here. It is easier for a strong state to oppose or reject any regulation from an international body, whereas it is very difficult for a weak state to do the same thing. But here too a weak state has the sovereignty to go for shrewd diplomacy in order to bring the situation in its favour. In other words, a weak state may try to garner support from some of the stronger states to oppose the targeted regulation and may finally become successful in rejecting it. In another situation, if the strong states are not inclined to support, the weak state may get the support of several other weak states, and together they could oppose the regulation. International diplomacy would not be bereft of examples of such possibilities. Therefore, a state has several options at its disposal to deal with the international community.

Internally, the state should not view the rise of the civil society or group politics as antagonistic factors. It must follow the democratic methods of dialogue, negotiation and peaceful settlement in order to meet their demands. In the age of globalization, a democratic state has the best chance to preserve its sovereignty compared to an autocratic state. A pluralistic society is not opposed, but complementary to the state. Internal terrorism may be countered by the state through socio-economic development of the estranged people. For combatting international terrorism, states need to join hands with one another. In the final analysis, an integrated world does not replace an international system based on sovereign equality of the nation-states. As observed in Chapter 10, the post–Second World War international economic and political orders continue to remain essentially state-oriented till today. States are the most important players at the UNO, WTO, IMF, World Bank and other international bodies, and although strong states are more visible in these organizations, the voices of the weaker states are not always submerged in them.

States are not completely helpless even in the age of globalization. In the third world, the state is, and needs to be, in the steering position for socio-economic developmental efforts, because equitable distribution of socio-economic resources cannot be left at the hands of private agencies. The ‘welfare’ role of the state can never be fully surrendered. In order to have ‘globalization with a human face’, the state cannot be totally sidelined. The state has not lost its control over MNCs, NGOs, IGOs and the IT revolution; it has only allowed them to stay reasonably free. This is also true for the advanced world, where state initiative is required to combat social and economic crises. The great financial recession in the West in 2008 required the intervention of the state in the United States, Britain and many other advanced countries. Further, new problems of the age of globalization, like international terrorism and environmental degradation, can never be tackled effectively without the active and leading participation of the state. The state is thus very much visible, and will continue to be seen in future in many spheres of domestic and international activities with its sovereignty retained firmly. The state has been willingly sharing many of its tasks with non-state actors since the Second World War, because it suited the interests of the state in a changing world order. So, the sovereignty of the state would melt down only to the extent the state would want it to dissipate.

Environment

Environmental issues have assumed greater significance in the study of international relations today than ever before because industrialization and technological progress have enhanced concerns for environmental safety all over the world. Like globalization and IT revolution, environmental issues too have made states across world highly interdependent today because carbon emissions from industrial plants in one part of the globe may affect other parts; a leakage in a nuclear power plant in one state of Europe, for instance, may create airborne radioactivity throughout the continent and even beyond, causing serious health hazards; shortage of river water in a state of Africa may lead it to a war with neighbouring states. Many more instances could be provided to show that environmental issues have now assumed global character, and constitute an important area of study in International Relations. Environmental issues cover a vast area from pollution leading to global warming and climate change, to demographic alteration including population explosion, to sharing of natural resources, to the question of international peace and security, and many more. Some of these important issues are taken up for analysis in this section.

Global Warming and Climate Change

Rapid and increasing industrialization in the world have led to the problem of global warming and climate change in recent years. Industrial emissions in different parts of the world have created a Green House Effect that significantly affected the rise in global temperature. When industrial and transport gases, mainly carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are released into the atmosphere, they act like glass panes in a green house normally built to save plants in very cold climates. These gases in the atmosphere allow solar radiation falling on the earth, but absorb and reflect back to the earth’s surface the long-wave infrared part of the radiated solar rays. This way the heat radiated from the earth’s surface is trapped, causing tremendous increase in global temperature. The consequential impacts are dangerous. Rise in temperature would melt the age-old ice caps of the polar region causing increase in sea-level in different parts of the world. The densely populated regions along the sea coast all over the world would be inundated. Many island-states face the danger of disappearing from the world map. Further, melting down of the ice covers in the high mountains would cause rivers to rise and flood vast areas, causing irreparable devastation on earth. Global warming results in severe climate change in many parts of the world, causing unprecedented floods, droughts, cyclonic storms and widespread disruption of the ecological system.

Apart from industrial and transport gases, global warming is also caused by rapid deforestation of the earth. In many regions, forests have been removed for the sake of urbanization and industrialization. Resources from forests are also used for various industries. As a result, trees and forests are becoming lesser in number. Tropical rain forests in Brazil, for example, are on the wane. Reduction of forests is causing global warming since trees absorb carbon dioxide and emit oxygen. Lesser trees would mean more carbon dioxide on earth and rise in global temperature. A related and equally serious problem is the depletion of the zone layer over the earth. This layer, which exists over the earth’s surface at a height between ten and thirty-five kilometres, prevents harmful ultraviolet (UV) rays of the sun from reaching the earth. Some industrial emissions, mainly CFCs, interact with the ozone layer and break it down, causing holes in the layer through which UV rays of the sun reach the earth. These rays are dangerous. They cause skin cancer in human beings and many animals, and agricultural crops are destroyed; biodiversity (huge diversity of plant and animal species on earth) is disturbed, and the earth’s ecological system is severely affected.

Global warming and climate change have serious repercussions on international relations because states have started to blame one another over the issue of industrial and transport emissions. The states of the South blame the rich industrial North for maximum emissions, while the advanced Northern states accuse the less-developed countries of the South of poor safety measures in their industrial plants, which they think cause huge emissions. Within the North as well as the South, states blame one another over issues like emission, sharing of natural resources, and displacement and migration of people due to ecological disorders. Side by side, there are international efforts—these are analysed later in this chapter—to tackle problems related to environment. International Relations and studies related to it are, therefore, immensely influenced by environmental issues.

Demographic Issues

Growth in world population, particularly in the poor South, is a major area of concern for the environmentalists. The world population, which is around 7.5 billion at present, is expected to reach around 11.8 billion by the year 2100, according to the UN estimates. About 95 per cent of the population growth would take place in states of the South, putting maximum pressure on their resources, both natural and created. Several states of the South may face problems like shortage of food, housing, employment; lack of adequate roads and transportation; and health hazards, if agricultural, social and industrial infrastructures are not properly developed. More people with limited resources would create enormous pressure on the environment, and escalate social tension. Although many states have adopted policies to curb population growth, the rate of success in this regard varies from one state to another. In China, for instance, the rate of population growth has decreased fast, whereas in states like Pakistan and Nigeria it has not been equally fast.

Some years ago, population growth was explained in terms of falling death rate, while the birth rate remained steady, due to advancement in medical sciences. While this argument is still valid for population growth in some states, the birth rate is also decreasing in most of the states of the world due to governmental policies to arrest population rise. However, the gap between the rates at which the birth rate and the death rate decrease is important with respect to the analysis of population growth. In a state where this gap is wide, population growth would take place more steadily than in a state where this gap is narrow. Demographic issues cover many interesting yet intriguing aspects. It has been observed in several states of the South that when economy grows faster than population, the total number of poor people may actually increase. This mainly happens when fruits of economic growth are enjoyed by a minority in the population. Therefore, arrest of population growth is not the only goal of a state, distribution of resources in a more or less just manner is more important in order to achieve reduction in poverty.

Rise in population affects a state’s economy and environment in several ways. Unchecked growth in population leads to low per capita income in a state, which in turn hampers economic development. Low per capita income may lead to less purchasing power, which ultimately affects the domestic market. Further, a rising population fosters acute competition for economic resources, and those who are deprived of economic means may get involved in social crime and violence. In many poor states of the South, perpetual social violence due to inadequate economic resources have crippled socio-political systems, and in turn severely affected economic development. A rising population would also put severe pressure on natural resources like water, land, minerals, forests and seas, leading to serious imbalance in the ecological system. It would be more prone to health hazards because a weak economy cannot guarantee health security for all people. Thus, in the long run, population growth puts immense pressure on the economy and the environment, leading to social and political tensions, health hazards and poverty.

Environment and International Peace

International peace and security are now much dependent on environmental issues; and environment, in turn, can be sustained through international peace. Environmental issues like sharing of river water and territories, or forest and sea resources, or climate change, may affect international peace and security. States go to war over these issues. One of the principal reasons behind the long war between Iran and Iraq from 1980 to 1988 was the issue of control over Shatt-al-Arab, a common water body spanning across the two states. The mountainous Kashmir valley remained a bone of contention between India and Pakistan for more than six decades and led to two large-scale wars and one undeclared war (two full wars in 1947–48 and 1965; and the recent Kargil ‘War’ in 1999). Territorial occupation has been the main source of conflict between the Palestinians and Israelis for nearly seven decades. The Caspian Sea, the largest inland water body in the world—with its abundant natural resources, including oil and gas—was a point of controversy between former Soviet Union and Iran, and after the Cold War, among the states surrounding the Caspian Sea. Today, there is a North–South divide not only over economic issues, but also over the question of climate change. As already noted, the North and the South accuse each other of maximum emissions that lead to environmental degradation. Global warming and climate change, if not tackled effectively, might lead to more conflicts in the world in future, and threaten international peace and security.

Present-day world politics has a great and serious impact on environmental issues. Many scholars working on environment blame international politics for global warming and climate change.³ In order to protect their national interests in world politics, and gain economic benefits, several states are not paying enough attention to the issue of environmental degradation. Further, wars and conflicts wreck havoc on the environment across the globe. The world has not forgotten the dropping of atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the resulting devastation of environment and population, both human and animal. In the more recent Gulf War in 1991, Iraqi military burnt oil wells in Kuwait and also spilled oil in the Gulf, causing unprecedented ecological disasters and health hazards. In almost all conflicts, regional or global, the warring parties deliberately degrade the environment to garner advantage over the opposition. They set fire to forests, level villages and towns, damage agricultural lands, poison river water, spray harmful gases, and resort to many other tactics that are detrimental to our ecological system. The environment is deliberately damaged during wars. Environmental safety is, therefore, highly dependent on international peace and security.

International Efforts to Safeguard the Environment

Today’s world is much concerned about environmental degradation because it threatens the very existence of life on earth. Apart from national governments, inter-governmental organizations (IGOs) like the UNO, as well as several NGOs, hold regular meetings and summits to discuss environmental issues and take necessary steps to safeguard the environment. Notable among the more recent international efforts to save our environment are the UN Environment Program (UNEP) launched in 1989; UN Conference on Environment and Development held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil in 1992 (popularly known as the ‘Earth Summit’); International Conference on Population and Development held in Cairo, Egypt, in 1994; International Conference on Natural Disaster Reduction in 1994; Second UN Conference on Human Settlements (Habitat II) in Istanbul, Turkey, in 1996; the Millennium Assembly of the UN in New York in 2000; and the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, Denmark, in December 2009. The Rio + 20 Conference, held in Rio de Janeiro in 2012, under the auspices of the UN and the UN Sustainable Development Summit in New York in 2015 continued global efforts for the protection of environment. The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI) organized the World Sustainable Development Summit in New Delhi in 2018. This marked another laudable initiative on environment protection in recent times. Table 12.1 presents a list of important conventions, conferences and summits on environment and related issues, held recently in different parts of the world.

Table 12.1 Important International Conferences on Environmental Protection (1973–2018)

It could be ascertained from the table that national governments, IGOs and NGOs all over the world are seriously concerned about environmental problems and they try to resolve such problems. For this purpose, several conferences, conventions and summits were held in different parts of the world on different aspects of environmental and related issues. The names of conferences, conventions and summits outlined in the table are indicative of the issues taken up for discussion there. For instance, the Earth Summit convened by the UN in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in 1992 was one of the biggest conventions ever held on environment and development, involving people from over a hundred states. The UN Climate Change Conference, held in Copenhagen in December 2009, is the biggest conference on environmental degradation so far, attended by 195 states. The ‘Copenhagen Accord’, agreed upon at the conference, recognized that climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our times and that actions should be taken to keep any increase in temperature below two degrees Celsius. The Rio + 20 Conference was held in Rio de Janeiro in 2012. The UN organized this event 20 years after the Earth Summit was held. It was attended by nearly 200 nations. But it should also be noted at this point that only international conferences and summits are not enough to address problems related to environment; the issue of economic development across the globe is integrally linked to this. The poor states lack enough resources to tackle problems associated with environmental degradation, although they have the desire to address them. Such problems would not, hence, be effectively resolved if underdevelopment and poverty continue to affect world economy in a similar manner in future.

Energy

Generally speaking, issues related to energy resources come under the broader theme of environment. But the increasing importance of energy in international politics in recent years demands a separate analysis of energy resources. Like globalization, energy issues determine the twists and turns in international politics today. They have assumed greater significance in the study of international relations. Among several natural resources, energy resources are very important for modern post–industrial economy. Energy resources like oil, coal, natural gas, hydroelectric and nuclear power are crucial for the survival of today’s sophisticated industrial economy. Of different energy resources, oil constitutes about 40 per cent of world energy consumption, followed by coal that makes for about 30 per cent. Natural gas constitutes about 25 per cent, and hydroelectric and nuclear powers make for another 5 per cent of world energy consumption in 2010. The following chart illustrates current major energy resources in the world. Countries having sufficient energy resources may have the potential to become driving forces in international economy and politics. Conversely, countries having little energy base may not play the role of important actors in international politics.

Figure 12.1 Major Energy Resources of the World

Trading in energy has assumed significant proportions all over the world and will continue to grow in future. Subsequently, marketed energy consumption will also rise worldwide by 2030. In 2006, marketed energy consumption in all energy resources was 472 quadrillion British Thermal Units (BTU). This will rise to 678 BTU, an increase of 44 per cent, by 2030. This rise will take place due to increased consumption of major energy resources like oil and other petroleum products, coal, natural gas, electricity, biofuels and nuclear energy. Table 12.2 highlights the projected increase in global marketed energy consumption of some significant items from 2006 to 2030.

Table 12.2 Increase in World Marketed Energy Consumption (2006–2030)

Source: Energy Information Administration, Department of Energy, Government of the United States of America (http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/highlights.html)

Table 12.3 Region-wise Per Capita Energy Consumption in the World from 2006 to 2016 [In Million Tonnes of Oil Equivalent (MTOE) Per Person]

Source: BP Statistical Review of World Energy, June 2017, www.bp.com; retrieved on 7 January 2018.

It is evident from the data presented in Table 12.2 that marketed energy consumption in the world will grow significantly by the year 2030, with more than 30 per cent rise in almost all energy resources. This growth in energy consumption will escalate the demand for energy, as well as competition among states to procure more and more energy. The twists and turns in international relations in the coming decades would be determined by the politics and economics of energy resources. The largest consumers in energy resources will have advantages in industry and commerce, but will also face condemnation for polluting the environment and abetting global warming. In this context, it would be appropriate to look at the per capita consumption of energy, both region-wise and nation-wise, in the world. Table 12.3 highlights region-wise per capita energy consumption in the world from 2006 to 2016.

It could be observed from Table 12.3 that developed industrialized regions of the world consume more energy than the less developed regions. North America, a highly industrialized region, consumed 2,788.9 MTOE energy per person in 2016. For the same year, Europe and Eurasia, a developed region in terms of industrial and technological progress, consumed 2,867.1 MTOE energy. But in these two regions, energy consumption decreased in comparison to the year 2006. However, in the Asia Pacific region (which includes Australia and New Zealand), energy consumption per person increased from 3,924.3 MTOE in 2006 to 5,579.7 MTOE in 2016. The rise of Chinese and Indian economies could provide an explanation for this rise in per capita energy consumption. Conversely, in Africa per capita energy consumption remained lower than other regions during the period under consideration. Per capita energy consumption was also on the lower range in South and Central America, a less developed region in the world. In this context, it would be interesting to look at country-wise per capita energy consumption in the year 2016.

Table 12.4 illustrates per capita energy consumption in select countries of the world in 2016. It lists countries with highest per capita consumption of energy in 2016, as well as countries with lowest per capita energy consumption in the world in 2016. It could be observed from this table that industrialized nations with big population consumed more energy than countries with less industrialization and less population. Table 12.4 reveals that countries such as China, United States, India and Russia consumed more per capita energy than countries such as New Zealand, Norway, Portugal and Chile. One word of caution here: global consumption of energy must be matched or surpassed by production of energy in the world; otherwise, the world will face shortage of energy in the near future, and this may lead to chances of escalation of conflicts among nations.

Table 12.4 Per Capita Energy Consumption of Select Countries in 2016 [In Million Tonnes of Oil Equivalent (MTOE) Per Person]

Source: Global Energy Statistical Yearbook 2017, www.enernet.in; retrieved on 7 January 2018.

Energy and International Relations Today

Energy resources play a crucial role in international politics and economy. Trade in energy resources constitutes the backbone of many national economies, and also a major part of world trade today. For instance, the economy of OPEC countries like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, Iran, Venezuela, Algeria and Nigeria are heavily dependent on oil exports. India has been earning substantial foreign exchange by exporting coal to different parts of the world. The industrialized North America and West Europe import most of the energy resources from other parts of the world to sustain their industries and ‘developed’ standards of living of the people. These regions of the world consume large energy products and their economy is also dependent on the import of energy resources. Trade in energy has become very lucrative nowadays, and countries and regional organizations are trying to reap benefits from energy trade. For instance, the Russian Federation has emerged as one of the largest exporters of oil and natural gas to Europe and other parts of the world, and this trade in energy is considered vital for the revival of Russian economy. The World Bank has advised South Asian countries to augment cooperation in energy trade, and the SAARC is trying to move ahead to achieve such cooperation.

Issues related to energy had always played a significant part in international politics. From the sixteenth to twentieth centuries, the European powers colonized countries of the Middle East, Latin America, Africa and Asia for energy resources like oil, coal and natural gas. Some Arab countries stopped supply of oil to the United States for the latter’s support to Israel in the 1973 Arab–Israel war. The American economy was hit hard as oil prices soared in the American market. One of the largest importers of petroleum products, the United States faced acute shortage of oil and gasoline. This ‘oil diplomacy’ by the Arab countries in effect put the OPEC into limelight, and enhanced its manoeuvring power in world politics. Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, the OPEC remained at the centre of world politics as it controlled the price and market of oil. However, since the 1990s, its dominance in international politics has been decreasing due to the emergence of several non-OPEC oil and natural gas producing countries like Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Kirghizstan, Norway and Denmark. But it should be noted here that the OPEC still wields considerable clout in international politics.

Energy resources may lead to conflicts among states. One of the primary reasons for Iraqi attack on Kuwait in 1991 was to secure rights over the Kuwaiti oil fields. But when this aim could not be fulfilled, Iraqi forces burned the Kuwaiti oil reserves. Further, conflicting claims over energy resources in the Caspian Sea had soured the international relations between Russia and Iran, as also among countries surrounding the Caspian Sea. The possibility of generating hydro-electricity from rivers meandering through international political borders has generated conflict-situations among states. The Jordan river is a source of discontent among Israel, Syria, Lebanon and Jordan. The Nile flows through Egypt, Kenya, Sudan, Burundi, Uganda, Tanzania, Rwanda and Zaire. Several ‘Nile-river states’ have a cold relation among themselves, and the source of such unfriendly relations is the issue of the share of the water of the Nile for irrigation and hydro-electricity. The Farakka Barrage set up by India on the River Ganges created animosity with Bangladesh, which accused India of masterminding a plan to dry out Bangladesh. River water disputes are plenty in international politics, and several of these relate to generation of hydro-electric power from river water. Oil and gas pipelines, either proposed ones or those actually running through several states, also lead to conflict-situations. Chechen rebels damaged oil pipelines running from Azerbaijan to the Black Sea through Chechnya in southern Russia. The proposed natural gas pipeline from Iran to India via Afghanistan and Pakistan had been postponed due to objections from Pakistan. Energy and related issues thus often determine the turns and tides of international relations.

Terrorism

Definition and Short History

Terrorism is motivated violence aimed at destabilizing civil order and creating panic among people and governments. It is an act of violence that is usually politically motivated, with the ultimate design to threaten the targeted population or government. Individuals or groups resorting to such motivated violence are known as terrorists, although this fixed definition carries the risk of being motivated itself because an individual who is considered a terrorist by X, may be a freedom fighter to Y. Similarly, acts of terrorism may be treated by some as freedom struggles or fights for justice. Therefore, ubiquitous definitions of terrorism or terrorists are almost impossible. However, when organized violence is carried out with the particular motive of threatening the existing social and political order, when innocent lives are taken away for securing a particular goal, such violence may be treated as terrorism; and individuals or groups responsible for this violence may be called terrorists.

Terrorism, in the sense of motivated organized violence, is nothing new. The earliest examples of terrorism could be found in the first century AD, when Jewish groups like the Sicari and the Zealots killed Roman government officials with the ultimate motive to bring an end to Roman occupation in Palestine. Followers of other religions also resorted to methods of terrorism. In the eleventh century, ‘Assassins’, an offshoot of a Shia Muslim sect known as the Ismailis, killed their targets, usually politicians and government officials, who refused to convert to the assassins’ version of Islam. Sacrifice was another cause behind terrorist acts carried out by the ‘Thugees’, a Hindu religious cult who strangled their victims, normally travellers, for offerings to the Hindu goddess ‘Kali’. Thugees were very active from the seventh to the mid-nineteenth centuries, and allegedly killed nearly a million people. They, along with the assassins, were the early examples of religious terrorism, which resurfaced in the late twentieth century.

Terrorism in the modern sense originated in France in the late eighteenth century. In 1793–94, a new French Revolutionary Republic, led by Maximilien Robespierre, used terrorism to deal with ‘subversive forces’. The first example of modern state terrorism, Robespierre considered the method of terrorism as a positive weapon to crush ‘anti-revolutionary’ elements. His government used the ‘guillotine’ to behead individuals who were suspected opponents of his regime. Nearly fifty thousand people were guillotined by the Revolutionary Republic before a popular uprising sent Robespierre and his trusted men to the guillotine. Later, in the 1930s, Hitler’s Nazi Government resorted to horrific state terrorism when thousands of Jews were brutally assassinated.

Types of Terrorism

This brief historical study of terrorism leads us to analyse different types of terrorism prevalent in the world today. Terrorism can be broadly classified into five types: political, ethnic, religious, state and international terrorism. But it must be noted here that there are thin lines of demarcation among different types of terrorism. For instance, ethnic, religious or international terrorism may be carried out to gain political objectives. In that sense, every type of terrorism may have ulterior political motives. Further, political terrorism may have ethnic or religious issues involved. This classification of terrorism is thus not an absolute one; it rather helps a comprehensive understanding of the issue of terrorism.A discussion of each type of terrorism follows.

Political Terrorism

When a group or a political party resorts to organized violence for destabilizing the existing political order, with the motive to establish a new one, such violence may be termed as political terrorism. But terrorism here is a relative term again; those favouring the new political order may view this act of violence as a fight for justice and right to self-determination. In this sense of terrorism, the activities of the Irish Republican Army (IRA) or the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) were treated as political terrorism by the British or the Israelis. The activities of the Kurdish groups in Turkey or the ‘Basque Fatherland’ in Spain are also examples of political terrorism, because they also want to change the existing political orders.

Ethnic Terrorism

Organized violence perpetuated for establishing ethnic dominance or to secure ethnic demands may be termed as ethnic terrorism. The LTTE’s (Liberation Tigers of Tamil Elam) demand for a separate Tamil state, and its attack on civilian targets in Sri Lanka that killed thousands of ordinary Sinhalese people, could be cited as an example. In the 1990s, ethnic trouble in Bosnia took the shape of ethnic terrorism where the Serbs tried to wipe off the Muslim Albanians and other non-Serb communities like the Croatians. The desire to establish Serb domination over the region (known as former Yugoslavia) by the Serb leaders led to such ethnic terrorism. Hitler’s repression over the Jews in Europe in the 1930s was another example of ethnic terrorism. In all these instances, ethnic terrorism had definite political motivations that led to large-scale organized violence.

Religious Terrorism

When organized motivated violence is carried out in the name of preserving the ‘dignity’ of a religion and its followers, such activities may be termed as religious terrorism. The Al Qaeda, Talibans, Lebanese Hizbollah, Abu Nidal, Lashkar-e-Toiba and many such groups resort to terrorism to uphold the ‘dignity’ of their religion. The Al Qaeda, led by the Saudi oil baron Osama Bin Laden, vowed several times to punish those individuals and states that undermined Islam. It carried terrorist attacks on American embassies in different parts of the world before crashing two passenger planes into the World Trade Center (WTC) in New York on 11 September 2001. Nearly ten thousand people died in this ghastly terrorist strike, the biggest in American history since the Second World War. The Talibans assassinated people at will in Afghanistan for not following the ‘practices’ of Islam. The Lashkar-e-Toiba and similar other terrorist organizations are active in the Kashmir valley of India in order to ‘liberate’ Kashmir, a Muslim-majority province, from India. These organizations frequently target the Indian army and ordinary civilians to create panic as well as to draw attention of the media, people, the Indian government and the international community. Political motives also act as major forces behind religious terrorism.

State Terrorism

When the government of a state resorts to organized violence to eliminate the ‘opponents’ with a view to establish its control, such acts of violence are known as state terrorism. It has been observed earlier that rulers like Robespierre and Hitler resorted to state terrorism to finish off their targeted opponents. In recent times, rulers like Pol Pot of Cambodia and Idi Amin of Uganda resorted to terrorist tactics to frighten people to follow their governments’ dictates. In the mid-1970s, the Pol Pot regime forced city dwellers in Cambodia to go to the countryside to work in collective farms and forced labour projects. Malnutrition, slavery, forced labour and wanton execution in the countryside—later called the ‘killing fields’—resulted in the death of 2.5 million people, approximately 21 per cent of the then population in Cambodia. Idi Amin, a military dictator and President of Uganda from 1971 to 1979, resorted to severe repression, especially against the Asians who lived in Uganda. Idi Amin’s government was engaged in mass execution of ‘opposing forces’, severe human rights abuses, and torture that resulted in the death of nearly five hundred thousand people. Today, democratically elected governments are sometimes accused of pursuing state terrorism when they trample on human rights and engage in political killing of their opponents. Human rights organizations have levelled charges against several democratic governments in different parts of the world for the violation of basic human rights and fundamental freedoms of the people. A state may indirectly, or directly, help terrorist groups foment trouble in another country, mainly its adversary. Such acts also fall in the category of state terrorism.

International Terrorism

Terrorist activities involving citizens of more than one country, and having transnational impacts, constitute international terrorism. It is also referred to as ‘cross border terrorism’. If any Indian national or Indian group is involved in terrorist activites in India, that would be an instance of domestic terrorism; but if people from other states join hands with the Indians in carrying out terrorist activities in India, that would amount to international terrorism. We are more concerned with international terrorism in the study of international relations, due to its impact on world politics. The 9/11 terrorist attacks on the United States was certainly aided and masterminded by people across territories, but it had a profound impact on US security and foreign policies, as also on international politics. India frequently experiences cross border terrorism when different terrorist groups from neighbouring countries and adjacent regions target its military, government officials and ordinary citizens. Mumbai witnessed a recent spate of international terrorism on 26 November 2008 (26/11) when terrorist groups from a neighbouring state attacked and killed policemen and ordinary citizens at railway stations, in restaurants, hotels and roads. Sometimes several terrorist groups working in different parts of the world join hands to carry out international terrorism. The Al Qaeda was aided by splinter terrorist groups in Europe and America, and also by the Talibans, in its 9/11 attacks on the United States.

The Changing Nature of Contemporary Terrorism

Psychological, socio-economic and ideological factors have been identified as major causes that push individuals towards terrorist activities. Researchers have proved that chemical imbalances in the brain may lead to mental conditions where rage, hatred and tendencies to defy authority could be noticed in some individuals. These persons are prone to violence, and may take resort to terrorism. Among the socio-economic factors, a traumatic and abused childhood or early life, uncaring families and extreme poverty may lead an individual to terrorist activities. Political ideologies that call for equality in the society, abolition of rich–poor divide, questioning the authority and mastering one’s own destiny, always attracted people’s attention and fomented radicalism. Individuals, under the magic spell of such political ideologies, may resort to the unconventional path of terrorism. Since ages, these psychological, socio-economic and ideological factors have led to the emergence and growth of terrorism all over the world. But as far as methods of terrorism are concerned, plenty of changes have taken place in recent times. Contemporary (post–Second World War) terrorism is vastly different from conventional (pre–Second World War) terrorism in its methods and techniques.

Although some scholars⁴ opine that there is little difference in techniques between conventional and contemporary terrorism, as bombings, fire bombings, armed attacks, arsons and kidnappings are used by both, the arguments put forward by this book would be different. To begin with, can conventional terrorism think of using passenger planes and crashing them into high rise towers like the WTC? Can it think of using satellite phones and computer technology for terrorist activities? Answers to these questions would be negative. The techniques of the two differ simply because more and more sophisticated technologies and weapons are available to the contemporary terrorist. For instance, in Tokyo, Japan’s capital, the doomsday cult Aum Shinrikyo released Sarin Nerve Gas on 20 March 1995 in the subway metro system, killing twelve people and injuring nearly four thousand. This use of chemical weapons by a group of religious fanatics brought huge changes to the techniques used by contemporary terrorists. At present, speculations are rife in international politics about the chances of terrorist groups getting hold of the weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). The face of contemporary terrorism would certainly undergo drastic changes if such a situation arises. Today, terrorist groups have their own web sites to propagate their ideas, something that was unheard of earlier. They also rely more on media, especially the electronic ones, to make public their views and to spread threats. The Al Qaeda and many other terrorist groups use these methods with remarkable regularity. The contemporary terrorist is sometimes backed by a very large network spreading across continents. The 9/11 terrorist attack on the United States is a case in point. This network involves personnel, satellite communications and computer technology. The terrorist attacks on Mumbai on 26 November 2008 were also carried out by one such large network. The conventional terrorist lacked such a sophisticated network.

Terrorism and International Relations Today

The impact of terrorism on international relations today is quite profound. The issue of terrorism may contribute towards strengthening or deteriorating relations among states. It may also bring about changes in security and foreign policies of states. Further, it could propel adjustments and shifts in policies and programmes of regional and international organizations. Terrorism, to begin with, can make or break relations between states. The issue of terrorism continues to exert negative influence on the relation between India and Pakistan or Israel and the Arab states. Both India and Pakistan have been accusing each other of sponsoring terrorism in their lands. Both have urged the international community to declare the other state a ‘state sponsoring terrorism’. On several occasions, the issue of terrorism deteriorated relations between the two neighbours. For instance, India cancelled all diplomatic talks for some time as a mark of protest against Pakistan’s alleged involvement in the 26/11 terrorist attacks in Mumbai. Similarly, relations between Israel and some Arab states suffered due to terrorist activities by extremist Arab and Israeli groups. Several such examples could be drawn from different parts of the world where terrorism has directly or indirectly influenced deterioration of relations among states. Conversely, relations among states may be strengthened due to the menace of terrorism. Two or more states may come close to one another to combat terrorism. After the 9/11 attack, the United States sought help from many states, especially states of the South Asian region, to counter terrorist organizations like the Al Qaeda, Talibans, Lashkar-e-Toiba and others. The United States is working in close cooperation with the governments of Afghanistan, Pakistan and India for counter-terrorism purposes. It has been viewing India as a close strategic partner, mainly after the 9/11 incident. This American perception helped to give a tremendous boost to bilateral relations.

States alter their security and foreign policies due to the menace of terrorism. The American policy of ‘war against terrorism’ emerged after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The Bush (Jr) government also announced the ‘National Security Strategy’ (NSS) in 2002, and the ‘National Security and Strategic Policy’ (NSSP) in 2004, two significant security policies after the terrorist attacks. India and Israel, who did not have diplomatic relations for a long time, are now engaged in security cooperation to counter the problem of terrorism. India’s nuclear doctrine had to be reshaped to augment its security in the face of growing security and terrorist threats coming from different states and organizations. In fact, every state, from England to Nigeria, from Japan to Canada, from Australia to Bangladesh, is on a high security alert now due to the growing threats of international terrorism; and every state is revamping its security and foreign policies to counter the increasing challenge from global terrorism.

Regional organizations like the EU, ASEAN, SAARC, AU and others are today very much concerned about terrorism. In a ‘Factsheet’ entitled The European Union and the Fight against Terrorism, published on 9 March 2007, the EU observed:

Terrorism poses a significant threat to the security of Europe, to the values of our democratic societies and to the rights and freedoms of European citizens. Acts of terrorism are criminal and unjustifiable under any circumstances. Terrorism must be countered both at national and international level. Action by the European Union has intensified since 9/11, and in particular since the horrendous attacks in Madrid (2004) and London (2005)… . The EU’s Counter-Terrorism Strategy covers four strands of work: Prevention, Protection, Pursuit and Response.⁵

Similarly, other regional organizations have also adopted newer policies to counter terrorism. For instance, the SAARC Summit held in Colombo in August 2008 declared:

The Heads of State or Government strongly condemned all forms of terrorist violence and expressed deep concern over the serious threat posed by terrorism to the peace, stability and security of the region. They further recognized the growing linkages between the phenomenon of terrorism, illegal trafficking in narcotic and psychotropic substances, illegal trafficking of persons and firearms and underscored the need to address the problem in a comprehensive manner. They reiterated their commitment to strengthen the legal regime against terrorism by undertaking to implement all international conventions relating to combating terrorism to which Member States are parties, as well as the SAARC Regional Convention on Suppression of Terrorism and the Additional Protocol to the SAARC Regional Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism.⁶

These policy documents reveal the fact that terrorism has indeed propelled all regional organizations to think afresh about the security of the region and member-states.

Terrorism threatens international peace and security, as well as human rights. The United Nations (UN) was very much concerned about terrorism and searched for appropriate ways to combat it. It adopted sixteen universal instruments (thirteen instruments and three amendments) against international terrorism. Through the General Assembly, member-states of the UN have been coordinating counter-terrorism activities and continuing legal work to fight terrorism. The Security Council has also been active in countering terrorism through proper resolutions and by establishing several subsidiary bodies. At the same time, a number of UN programmes, offices and agencies remained engaged in specific activities against terrorism. A recent significant UN instrument against terrorism has been The United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy, adopted by the General Assembly on 8 September 2006.

It is a unique global instrument that will enhance national, regional and international efforts to counter terrorism. This is the first time that all Member States have agreed to a common strategic approach to fight terrorism, not only sending a clear message that terrorism is unacceptable in all its forms and manifestation but also resolving to take practical steps individually and collectively to prevent and combat it. Those practical steps include a wide array of measures ranging from strengthening state capacity to counter terrorist threats to better coordinating United Nations system’s counter-terrorism activities.⁷

The UN Global Counter Terrorism Strategy is reviewed by the UN General Assembly (UNGA) every two years, making it a living document designed to suit requirements of member states. The Fifth Review of the Strategy took place in June 2014, and the Sixth Review is scheduled to take place in 2018. The Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy in the form of a UNGA Resolution and an annexed Plan of Action has four pillars as listed here:

1. address the conditions conducive to the spread of terrorism;
2. take measures to prevent and combat terrorism;
3. act to build states’ capacity to prevent and combat terrorism and to strengthen the role of the UN system in that regard; and
4. take actions to ensure respect for human rights for all and the rule of law as the fundamental basis for the fight against terrorism.

Clearly, the largest international organization responsible for maintaining international peace and security views terrorism as the biggest threat to mankind, that may upset the maintenance of international peace in our times. Terrorism also poses a challenge to safeguarding of human rights and fundamental freedoms throughout the world. This growing menace has created ripples in world politics, and added an altogether new dimension in the study of international relations.

ENDNOTES

1. N. R. Narayana Murthy, ‘The Impact of Economic Reforms on Industry in India: A Case Study of the Software Industry,’ in K. Basu (ed.), India’s Emerging Economy: Performance and Prospects in the 1990s and Beyond (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2004), 217.
2. Joseph Stiglitz, Globalization and Its Discontent (New York: W. W. Norton and Company, 2002), 247.
3. See, for instance, Kingsbury Benedict and Andrew Hurrell (eds), The International Politics of the Environment (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992). Also, D. H. Meadows, D. L. Meadows and J. Randers, Beyond the Limits: Confronting Global Collapse, Envisioning a Sustainable Future (Post Mills, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing, 1992).
4. See in this context, P. R. Viotti and M. V. Kauppi, International Relations and World Politics: Security, Economy, Identity (New Delhi: Pearson Education, 2007), 283.
5. The EU Council Secretariat, Brussels, 9 March 2007.
6. The SAARC Secretariat, Fifteenth SAARC Summit: Declaration; retrieved from http://www.saarc-sec.org/data/summit15/summit15declaration.htm/ on 13 August 2009.
7. As posted on the UN web site, http://www.un.org/terrorism/strategy-counterterrorism.shtml/. Retrieved on 13 August 2009.