NAME: AWAIS

REGISTRATION NO.: 04092113087

QUIZ: INTERNATIONAL RELATION QUIZ 1
SUBMITTED TO: DR. ABID GAFFOR
DATE: 14/12/2022
SECTION: BS ECONOMICS ‘’ A’’ (MORNING)

QUESTION 01: How can south Asia be a place of regional connectivity to facilitate
sustainable peace among SAARC nations?
South Asia is the southern subregion of Asia, which is defined in both
geographical and ethno-cultural terms. The region consists of the countries of
Afghanistan,[note 1] Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, and Sri
Lanka.[7] Topographically, it is dominated by the Indian subcontinent and defined
largely by the Indian Ocean on the south, and the Himalayas, Karakoram, and
Pamir mountains on the north. The Amu Darya, which rises north of the Hindu
Kush, forms part of the northwestern border. On land (clockwise), South Asia is
bounded by Western Asia, Central Asia, East Asia, and Southeast Asia.

United Nations cartographic map of South Asia.[47] However, the United Nations
does not endorse any definitions or area boundaries.
Modern definitions of South Asia are consistent in including Afghanistan,
Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka as the
constituent countries.[16][17][18] Afghanistan is, however, considered by some to be
a part of Central Asia, Western Asia, or the Middle East.[19][20][21][22][23][24] After the
Second Anglo-Afghan War, it was a British protectorate until 1919.[25][16][18] On the
other hand, Myanmar (Burma), administered as a part of the British Raj between
1886 and 1937[26] and now largely considered a part of Southeast Asia as a
member state of ASEAN, is also sometimes included.[20][21][27] But the Aden Colony,
British Somaliland and Singapore, though administered at various times under the
British Raj, have never been proposed as any part of South Asia. [28] The region
may also include the disputed territory of Aksai Chin, which was part of the British
Indian princely state of Jammu and Kashmir, now administered as part of the
Chinese autonomous region of Xinjiang but also claimed by India.[29]
The geographical extent is not clear cut as systemic and foreign policy
orientations of its constituents are quite asymmetrical.[20] Beyond the core
territories of the British Raj or the British Indian Empire, there is a high degree of
variation as to which other countries are included in South Asia. [30][21][31][32] There
is no clear boundary – geographical, geopolitical, socio-cultural, economical or
historical – between South Asia and other parts of Asia, especially the Middle East
and Southeast Asia.[33]
The common definition of South Asia is largely inherited from the administrative
boundaries of the British Raj,[34] with several exceptions. The current territories of
Bangladesh, India, and Pakistan which were the core territories of the British
Empire from 1857 to 1947 also form the core territories of South Asia. [35][36][17][18]
The mountain countries of Nepal and Bhutan, two independent countries that
were not part of the British Raj,[37] and the island countries of Sri Lanka and
Maldives are generally included. By various definitions based on substantially
different reasons, the British Indian Ocean Territory and the Tibet Autonomous
Region are included as well.[38][39][40][41][42][43][44] The 562 princely states that were
protected by but not directly ruled by the British Raj became administrative parts
of South Asia upon joining India or Pakistan.[45][46]

United Nations cartographic map of South Asia.[47] However, the United Nations
does not endorse any definitions or area boundaries.[note 2]
The South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC), a contiguous block
of countries, started in 1985 with seven countries – Bangladesh, Bhutan, India,
the Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka – and admitted Afghanistan as an
eighth member in 2007.[48][49] China and Myanmar have also applied for the status
of full members of SAARC.[50][51] The South Asia Free Trade Agreement admitted
Afghanistan in 2011.[52]
The World Bank and United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) recognizes the eight
SAARC countries as South Asia,[53][54][55][56] The Hirschman–Herfindahl index of the
United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific for the
region excludes Afghanistan from South Asia.[57] Population Information Network
(POPIN) excludes Maldives which is included as a member Pacific POPIN
subregional network.[58] The United Nations Statistics Division's scheme of sub-
regions, for statistical purpose,[15] includes Iran along with all eight members of
the SAARC as part of Southern Asia.[59]
The boundaries of South Asia vary based on how the region is defined. South
Asia's northern, eastern, and western boundaries vary based on definitions used,
while the Indian Ocean is the southern periphery. Most of this region rests on the
Indian Plate and is isolated from the rest of Asia by mountain barriers. [60][61] Much
of the region consists of a peninsula in south-central Asia, rather resembling a
diamond which is delineated by the Himalayas on the north, the Hindu Kush in
the west, and the Arakanese in the east,[62] and which extends southward into the
Indian Ocean with the Arabian Sea to the southwest and the Bay of Bengal to the
southeast.
South Asian region can be stabilized and cemented if policy initiatives both at the
government and nongovernment levels are taken by South Asian leaders with
commitment and mutual trust. Some of these initiatives and policy actions can be
suggested as such:
5.1. In the Political Field
a) Role of India
should play her role not as a big brother but as an equal partner for stability and
cooperation in South Asia. SAARC is not an unimportant forum rather its
significance has increased in the face of changing global and regional patterns so
India should be aware of this scenario. Most of the disputes in South Asia are
Indo-centric so India should adopt a low profile to get the confidence of its
smaller Neighbours. XX
b) Formation of Conflict Conciliation Groups
The CCGs can be formed for resolving bilateral disputes when all parties to a
particular dispute agree to seek SAARC help either to investigate the problem or
conduct a fact-finding study. The composition of the CCG can include a
representative from each of the parties seeking help from the group as well as
one or more representatives from other member states to ensure impartiality.
Such groups can take up studies of problems relating to exploitation of women
and children and other issues on which countries from within the region agree
c) Discussions on International Issues the SAARC Charter must provide for
discussions on the international issues among the leaders of the member
countries specially those relating to common issues of international peace and
security, trade, environment and technology transfers etc. Currently, the existing
structure does not allow for such discussions with the summit statements being
made and written by bureaucrats well before the summit meeting. Such a move
does not allow for these leaders to exchange ideas on international matters which
affect the region. Take the example of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT)
negotiations in Geneva. India and Pakistan, notwithstanding their own mistrust
over nuclear matters had similar concerns about the proposed CTBT. Rather than
working together, the two countries consciously fought shy of each other in
Geneva, diluting the collective strength that could have helped them.
d) Resolution of Bilateral Disputes
SAARC, being an emerging organization and having the potential to link the
resourceful economies of South Asia, must include in its provisions to resolve the
bilateral disputes peacefully and the provision of taking all the decisions
unanimously without touching bilateral ones should be relaxed rather eradicated.
Xi Though it would not be very easy to initiate but it should be initiated because
without this step, the overall development of this organization is meaningless.
The principles of respect for territorial sovereignty, political independence and
non-interference should not be avoided
. e) Role of Political Governments
In strengthening SAARC, the role of individual governments of all the eight
member countries is very important. The lack of trust and sincere efforts has
marred any development in this organization. When all the steps are taken with
constructive thinking and a vision for regional integration then no doubt, SAARC
can go much ahead of even European Union (EU). Several wars in the region and a
constant stream of allegations from most countries about illegal crossborder
violations have seen hundreds of nationals being held in captivity. A SAARC fact
finding team could be constituted, which could, in association with the
International Red Cross, be able to visit jails and other detention centers to
investigate claims
. 5.2. Economic Initiatives
a) Monitoring of Policy Changes
In the face of speedy trade liberalization, there is a need for the monitoring of
policy changes such as the introduction of tariffs, or price controls at the regional
level for greater coordination and a more effective response to the challenges of
globalization
. b) Establishment of South Asian Identity
Establishing an identity of South Asian region in terms of quality, brand names,
standards, investment regimes, and other areas where a common approach
would be the benefit of all the member states
c) Cooperation at Smaller
Sub-Regional Levels Cooperation at smaller sub-regional levels such as West
Bengal-Bangladesh, Bangladesh-India-Nepal to develop sub-regional growth
conditions'
d) Interaction among the Citizens
There is a need for facilitating increased interaction among the citizens of South
Asia by further improving road, rail and air travel facilities. There are, for example,
no easy air links between the major cities of South Asia. One must go to Bangkok
to reach Colombo from Dhaka. Similarly, Pakistanis need to go to Dubai or
Bangkok to reach Kathmandu. All these practical obstacles diminish the chances
of potential for people-to-people interaction in South Asia. An increase in joint-
venture initiatives in the service and educational sectors is the need of the time.
Today, Bangladeshi and Nepali students and patients flock to Indian educational
and medical institutions. This, no doubt, helps to bridge the cultural gap.
However, it is simultaneously contributing to a trade imbalance in the service
sector. Further, joint-venture initiatives in these sectors can be yet another form
of people-to-people cooperation.
e) Role of India
must play a more trustworthy and accommodating role to build up trust among
the smaller neighbors e.g. road transit between Nepal and Bangladesh should be
allowed to flourish
f) Trade and Investment In order to strengthen the regional economic block, trade
and investments activities should be increased among the South Asian
neighbors.xxiii
g) Economic Policy
Coordination Economic policy coordination is the need of the time to curb the
rivalries in regional and international markets arising from South Asian nations
and for similar trade profits and production. It is necessary to develop networks
for integrated production and joint-export activities.
h) Learning from Successes
and Failures the South Asian countries should learn from each other's failures and
successes in responding to poverty such as the micro-credit program in
Bangladesh or decentralization in some states in India. i) Establishment of Free
Trade Establishment of free trade areas by removing all trade tariff and non-tariffs
barriers.
j) Free Flow of Physical
and Financial Capital Free flow of physical and financial capital and facilitating and
streamlining the movement of personnel in the region.
k) Targeted Development
Targeted development and uplifting of the production plus export of the weaker
economies in South Asia.
5.3. Social Initiatives
a) Interaction between People Oriented Organizations
All types of people-oriented organizations i.e., civic, political, professional and
NGOs should participate to promote talks andexchanges,xxiv and contribute
towards building consensus within the region for a new order in South Asia, based
on recognition of the people's priorities, sharing the common heritage and
culture.
b) South Asian Identity
There is a need to build a South Asian identity based on common customs rooted
in the cultural, historical, social, ethnic and civilization traditions. Civil society
must be prioritized by the state.
c) Culture and Media
There should be greater exchanges of academics, poets and other cultural circles
among the South Asian countries. Also, there should be easy access to each
other's TV and other electronic programs. Organizing many more citizens press
conferences, deliberations in public fora, seminars and workshops by academics
and researchers highlighting the benefits of mutual cooperation and activation of
Track 1 cooperation. Encouraging exchanges through video conferences and use
of the Internet, facilities to strengthen the trust-building initiatives that are
already in operation, actions by the media (particularly the electronic media) to
bring the people of South Asia closer.
Another measure with potential is to set up a SAARC Joint Commission composed
of eminent historians from member countries to historically document the region,
helping to remove the distortion of historical reality in south Asia.
5.4. Institutional Initiative
a) Structural Changes in the Secretariat
Structural changes are needed to make the secretariat more responsive to
existing conditions as well as for quicker implementation of policies. Among these
structural changes, the size of the Secretariat should be increased to deal with the
wide range of issues being undertaken by SAARC under the IPA. To fund the
increased activities of the SAARC Secretariat, all the member countries should
pay, in addition to their existing contributions e.g one percent of their defense
budgets as additional cuss
b) Organizing more Meetings Another important structural change should be for
the Secretariat to schedule into its calendar at least three summit meetings of
Foreign Ministers and heads of the governments every year which would increase
the level of interaction in different fields among the member countries. There
should also be more frequent meetings of ministers holding other portfolios.
c) Greater Freedom to the Secretariat There should be freedom for the secretariat
to prepare position papers on multilateral issues of interest in the region itself.
These could initially be limited to those issues on which countries concerned give
the Secretariat permission to undertake research activity.
d) SAARC Parliament
To achieve the objective of a well-integrated economic community, SAARC
Parliament can be created. As an achievable aim, the YRIA formation of SAARC
Assembly can be envisaged. This assembly, to begin with, may only have
deliberative and not legislative functions.
QUESTION NO.:2 UNSC has become poppet in the hands of great powers please
elaborate in the light of realism ?
The UN Security Council (UNSC), established in 1947 to maintain international
peace and security, has increasingly come under criticism. There has been
particular focus on the Security Council’s failure to agree action on Syria, where
the 4-year civil war has cost 200,000 lives and seen the worst chemical weapons
attack on civilians since the 1980s. In 2014, the outgoing UN human rights
commissioner, Navi Pillay, condemned the Security Council for putting ‘national
interest and short-term geopolitical considerations over intolerable human
suffering and grave breaches of international peace and security’. The refrain has
been that the Security Council is no longer fit for purpose — is this fair?
A BUSY COUNCIL:
The Security Council has not been entirely paralyzed in recent years. The
permanent members — the USA, Russia, China, the UK and France — have agreed
and passed legally binding resolutions across the full range of its powers. It has
enforced economic sanctions in response to Iran’s nuclear programmed in 2010;
authorized military action to protect civilians in Libya in 2011; supported the
continued presence of troops training Afghanistan’s security forces; sent new
peacekeeping missions to Mali and the Central African Republic (over 100,000 UN
peacekeepers already operate around the world under UNSC approval); and
issued condemnatory statements against non-state actors ranging from Islamic
State to Boko Haram. The ten rotating non-permanent members — from Angola
to New Zealand — have played their part. Permanent members may have veto
power, but the support of most non-permanent members is still needed to
achieve the required two-thirds overall majority
THE VOTE AND SYRIA
The recent history of the veto is one of relative restraint, rather than
disagreement. By contrast, from the end of the Second World War to the height
of the Cold War in the early 1960s, the veto was used far more frequently: 117
times compared with just 17 vetoes since 2006
. On Syria, however, Russia and China have together vetoed four separate
resolutions, including early calls for a comprehensive ceasefire in 2011 and the
referral of Syria to the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity in
2014.
Putin’s motives seem mixed. Military action to remove Assad (contemplated by
the USA and the UK in September 2013 but rejected due to lack of domestic
support) would establish an unwelcome precedent of military action by foreign
countries to topple unpleasant regimes. Russia’s strategic Middle East naval base
on Syria’s shores, provided in return for weapons, is a key asset it is reluctant to
lose. More simply, uncompromising opposition against Western powers in the
Security Council plays well at home for Putin and shores up popular support.
China’s willingness to use its veto power is a new phenomenon. Since 1989, it has
been vetoed only seven times (see Figure 1). Six of its vetoes have come since
2008, four of these being in alliance with Russia on Syria. This suggests a change
in China’s foreign policy strategy, reflecting that its growth as an economic power
is now being followed by a desire to become more active as an international
power within key decision-making bodies including the Security Council.
Previously, China abstained rather than vetoed; now, a new alliance with Russia
— both economically and geopolitically — is opening.
Both Russia and China have been suspicious about the risk of ‘mission creep’
arising from Security Council resolutions that authorize military action. In 2011,
the Security Council drew on the UN’s Responsibility to Protect doctrine (where
nation states surrender their sovereignty if they fail to protect or actively threaten
their population), approving ‘all necessary means to protect civilians’ from
Muammar Gaddafi’s regime in Libya. For Russia and China, the NATO air
campaign that followed, and ended in Gaddafi’s killing by his own people,
stretched that mandate beyond breaking point into a charter for regime change.
Both Russia and China felt duped, and have been keen ever since to constrain
future military action.
However, the Security Council has made some progress on Syria. In 2013, it
agreed the destruction of Syria’s chemical weapons programme, which UN
inspectors now estimate to be 96% destroyed. In 2014, it called for Syria to allow
humanitarian access to aid agencies and condemned ‘widespread violations of
international law by the Syrian government’. Stronger Security Council action,
such as military strikes against the Assad regime, has in reality been blocked not
just by potential Russian and Chinese opposition in the Security Council, but also
by reluctance from the American and British publics to support another Middle
Eastern intervention where the objectives and prospect of success were unclear.
The Security Council is not the only opposition to tougher action in a conflict
where it has been increasingly difficult to decide which side deserves support and
protection.
UNCLE SAM’S VETO

While Russia and China have attracted criticism over Syria, they are not alone in
using the veto to allow clear-cut breaches of international law to continue. Since
the 1970s, the USA has vetoed more Security Council resolutions than any other
permanent member. In particular, the USA has vetoed 41 resolutions in relation
to Israel and the Palestinian territories. These include resolutions condemning the
construction of Israeli settlements in occupied Palestine, which have been widely
accepted as illegal under the Geneva Convention, most recently by President
Obama in 2011.
Most recently, the USA has argued that UNSC resolutions would only complicate
efforts to resume stalled negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians on a
two-state peace deal and would risk ‘hardening the positions of both sides. Critics
say that Washington is under pressure from Israel and Congress, which has a
strong pro-Israel lobby.
OLD GUARD

What of the other permanent members, the UK and France, whose status as world powers — although
they are still nuclear weapons states — is under pressure? Many criticize the
Security Council’s membership as a relic of the Second World War. Calls for
emerged and emerging powers, such as India, Japan, Brazil and Germany (and a
Muslim or African nation), to join have so far stumbled. India appears the closest
to membership, with no permanent members still opposed to it joining, but
whether new permanent members would also be given veto powers remains in
doubt.
The greatest threat to the authority of the Security Council remains the
permanent members’ ability to act unilaterally. The US and UK invasion of Iraq in
2003 and Russia’s annexing of Crimea in 2014 were unilateral actions where the
Security Council was powerless to intervene. Security Council attempts to rein in
unilateralist permanent members are of course doomed to fail. In 2014, Russia
unsurprisingly vetoed a resolution which declared the Crimean referendum the
sovereignty of Ukraine’s territorial borders.
REALIST VIEWS

Realists, although they do not reject the United Nations completely, argue that
the world is anarchic and states will eventually resort to war despite the efforts
of international organizations, which have little real authority. Generally, realists
believe that international organizations appear to be successful when they are
working in the interests of powerful states. But, if that condition is reversed and
an organization becomes an obstacle to national interests, then the equation
may change. This line of enquiry is often used by realists to help explain why the
League of Nations was unsuccessful – failing to allow for Germany and Japan’s
expansionist desires in the 1930s. A contemporary example would be the United
States invading Iraq in 2003 despite the Security Council declining to authorise it.
The United States simply ignored the United Nations and went ahead, despite
opposition. On the other hand, liberals would argue that without the United
Nations, international relations would likely be even more chaotic – devoid of a
respectable institution to oversee relations between states and hold bad
behaviour to account. A constructivist would look at the very same example and
say that while it is true that the United States ignored the United Nations and
invaded Iraq, by doing so it violated the standard practices of international
relations.
The Security Council has angered many for its inability to act against Syria, for its
impotence in the face of Russia’s annexing of Crimea and for its silence on the
Palestinian question. In those cases, it may reasonably be argued that the
Security Council has not fulfilled its purpose of maintaining international peace
and security. But assessing this question fairly depends on whether one takes a
liberal or a realist viewpoint of the purpose of the Security Council. By design, it
was — and is — a forum with a combination of liberal and realist principles in
mind as a means by which major powers could work together in the common
interest where feasible but reserve the right to protect their national interests
too. The reality is that the more multipolar world politics is, and the more equal
the global balance of power is, the more willing the major powers will be to use
the veto and frustrate the liberal principle. An increasingly confident Russia and
China, combined with an already confident USA, demonstrate that as we enter a
more multipolar era, we can probably expect greater disagreement at the
Security Council, not less. Fit for purpose? It depends if you are a liberal or a
realist.