Toward a

Diplomatic Action Plan

on Nuclear Issues
By
Chester A. Crocker

Co n t e n t s

I. Overview

II. Key Assumptions: Building a Foundation for Progress

III. Geopolitical Linkages and Obstacles

• The Russian Arena
• The Middle East Arena
• The Russia–Middle East Nexus

IV. Defining the Goal

V. Actions to Establish Credibility and Lay Policy Groundwork

• Setting the Tone
• Establishing a Political Base for Diplomatic Action

VI. Engaging the Key Players: Some Initial Diplomatic Considerations

• United Kingdom
• Russia
• Content of the Russia-U.S. Track
• Consulting with Non-Nuclear Allies and other Non-Nuclear Weapon States
• France
• The China-India-Pakistan Nexus
• Israel

VII. Future Nuclear Governance

for detail, follow this link: http://media.hoover.org/sites/defaul...er_Crocker.pdf

enoy it.
__________________
When Problems are so Big & Your Strength is no Longer enough to CaRRy them, Don't
Give uP; Because where your Strength Ends the Grace of Almighty ALLAH Begins

The Following 11 Users Say Thank You to Asif Yousufzai For This Useful Post:

Billa (Thursday, July 14, 2011), candidguy (Sunday, May 15, 2011), Enab (Monday, May
16, 2011), mjkhan (Sunday, May 15, 2011), MoonSaghar (Tuesday, January 15,
2013), Nosheen Bukhari (Thursday, September 27, 2012), pari Ali BNi (Tuesday, May 19,
2015), riffat sultana (Wednesday, May 18, 2011), sara saif (Tuesday, September 25,
2012), sultanakbar (Friday, October 07, 2011), Utmanian (Thursday, June 23, 2011)
 #2
Monday, May 16, 2011
Join Date: Nov 2007
Asif Yousufzai Location: DreAm LanD
Senior Member Posts: 583
Thanks: 173
Thanked 1,078 Times in 408 Posts

IR Notes. . . .

International Relations
By
David Wessels

Table of Contents

Chapter 1 Introduction
Chapter 2 In Search of Theory
Chapter 3 Realism
Chapter 4 Peacekeeping Operations
Chapter 5 Pluralism
Chapter 6 The Idea of Human Rights
Chapter 7 Globalism
Chapter 8 The Movement of People and International Relations
Chapter 9 Globalization: Light and Shadow
Chapter 10 Governance
Chapter 11 An Axis for Theory: Cooperation and Conflict
Chapter 12 A Human Image of International Relations
Chapter 13 Constructivism

-----------------------------------------------------------
For complete book visit the below address:
http://pweb.sophia.ac.jp/wessels/IRN...E)Complete.pdf
__________________
When Problems are so Big & Your Strength is no Longer enough to CaRRy them, Don't
Give uP; Because where your Strength Ends the Grace of Almighty ALLAH Begins

The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Asif Yousufzai For This Useful Post:

Billa (Thursday, July 14, 2011), mjkhan (Friday, May 27, 2011), MoonSaghar (Tuesday,
January 15, 2013), Nosheen Bukhari (Thursday, September 27, 2012), pari Ali
BNi (Tuesday, May 19, 2015), sultanakbar (Friday, October 07, 2011)
#3
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
 Join Date: Nov 2007
Asif Yousufzai Location: DreAm LanD
Senior Member Posts: 583
Thanks: 173
Thanked 1,078 Times in 408 Posts

Modern state system. . . .

THE MODERN STATE SYSTEM AND THE

INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM

The modern state system refers to the situation that developed in mid 17th century
Europe that saw political units emerging with governments that began to claim sovereign
powers over the territories they held sway. This is not to say that there were no states
prior to this period. After all, we did have the city-states of ancient Greece, those of
Northern Italy, the Germanic tribes that coalesced to form the Heanseatic League etc. We
also had what Palmer and Perkins refer to as “sprawling dynastic empires” the Roman,
Russian,German, Austrio-Hungarian, and those that developed in SubSaharan Africa-
Ghana, Mali, Songhai, Bornu, Buganda, etc. These political entities engaged in and
maintained relations with one another - entering into and delinking from alliances,
drawing up treaties, pacts and other mechanisms of co-operation and or association. But
until 1648, the world never came to know a system of national or independent states
resting on … “the theory of sovereignty”.

THE MODERN STATE SYSTEM & THE PEACE OF WESTPHALIA.

By the peace of Westphalia, we mean the peace treaty concluded in the German city of
Westphalia in 1648 that ended the thirty years war in Europe (1618 – 1648). The
emergence of the modern state, system is traceable to this treaty. In the words of
Nwokike and Okoro, “the treaty of Westphalia of 1648 … saw the emergence of modern
nation-states with sovereign powers exercised by recognized overnments.” With this
development, the two medieval institutions that rivaled and threatened the power of the
nation-state-universal church or the papacy and dynastic empires began process of
ecession from which they are yet to recover. They were thenceforth denied any
interference in the ecclesiastical and temporal affairs of the developing nation states .

There are certain basic features of the state system. According to Palmer and Perkins,
these are neither inseparable nor adjuncts to it. Rather, they are corollaries to the state
system. They include the oncept of sovereignty, the doctrine of nationalism and the
principle of national power Sovereignty can be understood to be “the legal theory that
gives the state unique and virtually unlimited authority in all omestic matters and in its
relations with other states”, while nationalism is taken to refer to that psychological or
spiritual quality which, unites the people of a state and gives them the will to champion
what they regard as their national interests. National power on the other hand is the
might of a state, providing the capabilities for getting done what the state wants
accomplished Space constraints may not allow us to go into the details of the above
concepts as analytical tools in international relations analysis, as they constitute sub
themes in the discipline. To however underscore their centrality in any understanding of
the state-system, we may proceed to highlight their basic features.
Just like the doctrine of nationalism, the concept of sovereignty is indissolubly associated
with the state system. In the words of Jean Bodin (1530-96), the father of the modern
theory of sovereignty, it is “the supreme power over citizens and subjects, unstrained by
law”. This conception of sovereignty tended to associate it with the absolute monarchy of
Jean Bodin’s days. Writing some half` a century later, Hugo Grotius conceived of it as
“that power whose acts … may not be made void by the acts of any other human will”. As
is always the case with social science concepts, these, definitions are by means
exhaustive. Three distinguished authorities –Oppenheim, Willoughby and Kelson have said
largely the same thing but in different words. For oppenheim, “Sovereignty is supreme
authority, an authority which is independent of any other earthly authority”. Willoughby
sees sovereignty as the “supreme will of the state”, while for Kelsen, “in its original and
only specific meaning, sovereignty means supreme authority”.

From the above, it is evident that sovereignty connotes the supreme authority or the
ultimate coercive power which the state possesses, and which other institutions do not. It
is thus this concept that confers on the state its legal recognition as a states. Hence
without sovereignty, no political entity can be called a state. So irrespective of the size,
location or power with which a political entity may be endowed, once the doctrine of
sovereignty has been bestowed upon it, it is considered legally equal to every other state
in the international system. This is what is referred to as the doctrine of “Sovereign
equality” that obtains presently in the global arena.

As a corollary to the state system, nationalism can be understood only within the prism of
the nation, nation-state, nationality, national self-determination, patriotism, and
chauvinism. In the evolution and advancement of the state, the above concepts may need
either to be suppressed or advanced depending on the role they seek to play in advancing
state interests. As Hans Morgenthau suggests, the nation needs a state, since one nation,
one state is the political postulates of nationalism, while the nation-state is its ideal.

Power is a major component of the state-system. States are always engaged in the
pursuit of power either to argument the ones they already possess or to acquire requisite
potential to persue set objectives within the international system. As indicated by some
commentators, it is the best guarantor to the inviolability, sovereignty and territorial
integrity of the nation-state In its relationship with the state-system, power has been
defined in varying ways – “the power of man over the minds of other men”, “the capacity
to impose ones will on others by reliance on effective sanctions in case of non
compliance”, “the production of intended effects”.

From these conceptions, it is obvious that national or state power is inseparable, if not
synonymous with state sovereignty.

THE STATE-SYSTEM SINCE WESTPHALIA

The state system that emerged from Westphalia, as alluded to earlier began to increasing
parade the basic features we have indicated in the proceeding analysis. Notable changes
that came on the eve of Westphalia with regard to the state system manifested in the
arrival of England, France and Spain as national states or nation-states, while others were
on their way. The Roman church thus failed in its long effort to assert and maintain a
universality in political and religious matters. The notion of an independent secular
state(10) began to gain currency following its defense and justification by such theorists
as Machiavelli, Bodin, Grotius etc.
The Treaty of Westphalia equally formalized the nation-state system by its recognition
that empires no longer commanded the allegiance of their parts, and that the Pope could
no longer maintain his authority every where, even in spiritual matters. Henceforth,
German Princes were at liberty to rule as they saw fit, and in religions matters, they were
free to choose Calvinism, Lutheranism or Catholicism. Holland and Switzerland were
recognized as independent states. Prussia began an expansion that eventually resulted to
the establishment of the German empire that survived unto the early 20th century. The
state-system that developed in Europe following the Peace of Westphalia was initially
concentrated in Europe for obvious reasons. But with the demise of colonialism and
imperialism it has been extended to the erstwhile Afro-Asian colonial dependences. Since
World War II the European state System has become a worldwide phenomenon. The state
system got enlarged substantially in numbers following the emergence of new states in
Africa and Asia. As a world wide phenomenon, the state system has tended to constitute
itself into a global arrangement to form the international system.

THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM.

The basic units of the international society remains the nation-states. Sovereign states in
their interaction in the international environment thus tends to constitute themselves into
a system. It is this state system when in dynamic interaction in the international
environment that we refer to as the international system. While some commentators see
it as the sum of interactions among the constituent units (states), others conceive of it as
“the totality of all boundary – crossing interactions of whatever kind among whatever
units”. William D. Coplin defines it more precisely as “a decentralized political system
dominated by competing relatively autonomous, territorially based political organizations.
” What Coplin refers to as “political organizations” in this definition are of course the
nation-states. And so it is the nation state that constitute the international system. The
question then arises, whether indeed they constitute a system. If so, what is the nature of
the system.

To answer the question, we need first of all to determine what is meant by a system. A
system has been defined as “an autonomous unit capable of adaptive behaviour”. It has
equally been defined as “a set of complexes standing in interaction”. This theorist goes on
to state that each set of elements in the system is living and dynamic and has an
environment. This dynamism is created by the interactions among the systems elements,
and that between the system itself and its environment. It is further submitted that these
interactions promote the system’s adaptive behaviour hence a system is given to be an
organized whole in dynamic interaction.

It is in this light that the international system is conceived of an organized whole in

dynamic interaction. To understand the international system as an organized whole, some
theorists have likened it to the biological system of the human body and other organic
matter. To this end, it is observed that just like the different organs of the human body
function in an autonomous but interrelated and interconnected manner, to the end that
any disruption or adverse impact on one immediately sets up a spiral on the rest of the
system; so it is with the international system. It is further contended that as the biological
system has sub-system such as the digestive sub-system, the respiratory sub-system,
etc, so is the internatioanl system divided into sub-systems which is this case is referred
to as regions. Thus we have Africa, Europe, the Middle East etc as subsystems of the
international system.

Taking cognizance of these similarities, commentators are largely agreed that the
international system may qualify as a system, though what they refer to as “important
differences” still exist between it and “a natural or biological system”. These so-called
important differences stem from the nature of the international system in operation rather
than in its characteristics as a system. Thus, whereas the biological system is ‘natural’,
the international system is artificial , being largely cultural and conceptual creation of
international relations analysts. It is equally given that whereas the international system
is voluntaristic, as its members (states) basically join of their own free will, the biological
system accords no such luxury to its units or sub-systems. Again the biological is
considered real since it can be felt physically, while there is international system is
abstract. Added to this is the assertion that the sub-system of a biological system are
more closely knit than their counterpart in the international system. In the words of one
commentator, “biological and physical systems at least seem to the observer or analyst to
have an objective coherence … while imperfect interdependence and relationship seem to
be the most important features of the international system”. This is buttressed by the
observation that sub-systems or units in the international system can decide to isolate
themselves from the rest of the system without serious adverse consequences, whereas
such is clearly not the case with regard to the biological system. For instance while the
world had seen the adoption of various isolationist policies by some members, units of the
international system – U.S.A from 1830’s to 1914; China for nearly four decades Japan
until the era of MC Arthur etc. including isolations induced by sanctions regimes imposed
on some countries by the rest of the international community – Iraq, Libya, Serbia
Yugoslavia etc, these did not appear to have had any appreciable impact on the rest of
the international system, as say a break down of the circulatory sub-system would have
on a biological system.

From the foregoing, it is submitted that much as the international system has basic
characteristics that establishes it as a system, it is certainly not the same as what obtains
in a biological system in natural sciences.

STRUCTURE OF THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM.

The international system is said to be characterized by anarchy. This is with regard to the
nature of the interaction between the basic units of the system: nation-states. As the
interaction is of a political nature, it is always charcterised by power and the persuit of
interests by the states and other non-state actors in the international environment. Since
there is an absence of an executive authority in the international environment as in the
domestic scene, states tend to determine and persue those interest most times at the
expense of other states’ interests often relying on the doctrine of sovereign rights as
discussed earlier. This appears to be harbinger of chaos and conflict within the
international system.

Strictly speaking however, the absence of a central executive authority in the

international system does not make it synonymous with anarchy or chaos. This would be
particularly true of the international system of the period from the end of World War I.
From this time onwards, some form of universal organizations – the League of Nations
and the United Nations have evolve to try some form of regulatory activities in the
conduct of nation states in their interaction with other nation-states in the system. These
organizations have tried to ensure that accepted norms of behaviour prevalent in the
international community is adhered to by all actors in the international environment,
particularly, the nation-states. Various forms of sanctions regimes have been evolved to
try to enforce compliance to these accepted norms. These, in addition to other forms of
collective security arrangements as enunciated in chapter VII of the UN charter have
tended to induce some order within the international system, even though they are still a
poor alternative to a Central Executive Authority.
Experience sufficiently bears the above assertion out. Even before the evolution of the
universal organizations made reference to earlier, some form of mechanism adopted for
the regulation of state conduct, for instance the so-called Concert of Europe (1815) could
not achieve much before it collapsed barely a decade after its evolution. In the
contemporary international system, collective security measures evolved to discourage or
redress aggressive predilections of states have tended to apply only against small and
medium powers – N. Korea (1950), Iraq (1990) etc. Aggression by Great powers have
tended to paralyze collective security measures – Soviet –Hungary (1956), U. S. Granada
(1983), Libya (1987) Iraq (2003), Italian Abyssinia (1936) etc.

These instances tend to suggest that the absence of an effective and independent central
executive authority (world government) tends to accentuate the anarchic nature of the
international system. We do know that norms of behaviour and conduct exist within the
international system, but these have never been given a free rein to operate. State
interest persued in terms of power has continued to constitute a hindrance to this. Even in
a globalized “New World Order” interest articulation and persuit by states have continued
to be accorded more priority than collective security mechanisms in maintaining order in
the international system.

__________________________________________________ _____________
__________________
When Problems are so Big & Your Strength is no Longer enough to CaRRy them, Don't
Give uP; Because where your Strength Ends the Grace of Almighty ALLAH Begins

The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to Asif Yousufzai For This Useful Post:

Billa (Thursday, July 14, 2011), engraj (Monday, January 14, 2013), fuzzyrants (Monday,
May 06, 2013), mjkhan (Friday, May 27, 2011), MoonSaghar (Tuesday, January 15,
2013), pari Ali BNi (Tuesday, May 19, 2015), Rahatullah Mallick (Monday, October 24,
2016), riffat sultana (Wednesday, May 18, 2011), Utmanian (Friday, May 27, 2011)
#4
Wednesday, May 18, 2011

Join Date: Nov 2007

Asif Yousufzai Location: DreAm LanD
Senior Member Posts: 583
Thanks: 173
Thanked 1,078 Times in 408 Posts

IR A very short intro.....

International
Relations
A Very Short Introduction
By
Paul Wilkinson

Contents
  Introduction
 States
 Non-states
 Intergovernmental organizations
 Problems and challenges
 Conclusion

visit the following address for accessing a complete book:

https://rs660l35.rapidshare.com/#!do...ction.rar|1512
__________________
When Problems are so Big & Your Strength is no Longer enough to CaRRy them, Don't
Give uP; Because where your Strength Ends the Grace of Almighty ALLAH Begins

The Following User Says Thank You to Asif Yousufzai For This Useful Post:

pari Ali BNi (Tuesday, May 19, 2015)

#5
Friday, May 20, 2011

Join Date: Nov 2007

Asif Yousufzai Location: DreAm LanD
Senior Member Posts: 583
Thanks: 173
Thanked 1,078 Times in 408 Posts

IR Ebook. . . .

EXPLAINING AND UNDERSTANDING

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
By
MARTIN HOLLIS & STEVE SMITH

Contents

1. Introduction: Two Traditions

2. The Growth of a Discipline
3. Explaining
4. Understanding
5. The International System
6. The Games Nations Play (1)
7. Roles & Reasons
8. The Games Nations Play (2)
9. Explaining & Understanding

Link 4 a complete Book is : Hollis Smith Explaining and Understanding International

Relations - Free Download from 4shared - Filestube.com

enjoy it....
__________________
When Problems are so Big & Your Strength is no Longer enough to CaRRy them, Don't
Give uP; Because where your Strength Ends the Grace of Almighty ALLAH Begins

#6
Friday, May 27, 2011
Join Date: Nov 2007
Asif Yousufzai Location: DreAm LanD
Senior Member Posts: 583
Thanks: 173
Thanked 1,078 Times in 408 Posts

Power & Interdependence....

Power & Interdependence

2nd Edition
By
Robert O. Keohane
&
Joseph S. Nye

Contents

PART-I---UNDERSTANDING INTERDEPENDENCE
Chapter-1---Interdependence in World Politics

Chapter-2---Realism & Complex Interdependence

Chapter-3---Understanding International Regime Change

PART-II---REGIME CHANGE IN OCEANS AND MONEY

Chapter-4---The Politics of Oceans and Money: Historical Overview

Chapter-5---Complex Interdependence in Oceans and Money

Chapter-6---The Politics of Rule Making in Oceans & Money

PART-III---REGIMES AND TWO BILATERAL RELATIONSHIPS

Chapter-7---US Relations with Canada & Australia

PART-IV---US & COMPLEX INTERDEPENDENCE

Chapter-8---Coping with Interdependence

click here:Power and Interdependency - Keohane and Nye

 __________________________________________________
__________________
When Problems are so Big & Your Strength is no Longer enough to CaRRy them, Don't
Give uP; Because where your Strength Ends the Grace of Almighty ALLAH Begins

The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Asif Yousufzai For This Useful Post:

pari Ali BNi (Tuesday, May 19, 2015), sultanakbar (Friday, October 07,
2011), Utmanian (Friday, May 27, 2011)
#7
Friday, May 27, 2011

Join Date: May 2011

Location: Islamabad
Posts: 29
Utmanian Thanks: 75
Member Thanked 10 Times in 9 Posts

Sir is ma say konsa book ya nots follow karay ya sb ko karna hoga...

#8
Saturday, May 28, 2011
Join Date: Nov 2007
Asif Yousufzai Location: DreAm LanD
Senior Member Posts: 583
Thanks: 173
Thanked 1,078 Times in 408 Posts

@Utmanian

Brother I personally like all these books because it contains such information which
differentiates them from one another. If you have time then just have a bird’s eyeview of
them and note down important points and facts & figures because these points, if written
in paper, will help you in securing high marks.

2ndly for CSS IR paper you should thoroughly study the following books:

1. International Relations by Prakash Chander

2. Success in twentieth century world affairs by Jack Watson
3. International Relations magazines (monthly or quarterly published)

This is my personal view you can also take help from other forum members in books
selection.
__________________
When Problems are so Big & Your Strength is no Longer enough to CaRRy them, Don't
Give uP; Because where your Strength Ends the Grace of Almighty ALLAH Begins

The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Asif Yousufzai For This Useful Post:

Billa (Thursday, July 14, 2011), izharkasi (Friday, April 01, 2016), Nosheen
Bukhari (Friday, December 07, 2012), sultanakbar (Friday, October 07,
2011), TheUniter (Tuesday, October 04, 2011), Utmanian (Thursday, June 23, 2011)
#9
Tuesday, May 31, 2011

Join Date: Nov 2007

Asif Yousufzai Location: DreAm LanD
Senior Member Posts: 583
Thanks: 173
Thanked 1,078 Times in 408 Posts

Ww-i & ww-ii......

World War I
(August 4, 1914 to November 11, 1918)

Main Contestants
Central Powers comprising Germany, AustraliaHungary,
Turkey and Bulgaria on the one hand, and Allied Power comprising England, France,
Belgium, Serbia, which were joined by Russia and Italy in 1915 and 1917, respectively.

How the First World War Broke Out?

When Austria attacked Serbia, after one month of Prince Ferdinand?s murder, it drew
Russia towards Serbia. Germany entered the fray to support Austria because it had vested
interests in Turkey and was committed to support Austria. One by one, France, England
and the other countries entered the war.

Results/Consequences of World War I

Central powers were defeated. About 50 lakh allied soldiers were killed and 1 crore and 10
lakh wounded. Bulgaria, Turkey and Austria surrendered. Germany signed the Armistice
Treaty on November 11, 1918 and World War I ended. In 1919 the Treaty of Versailles
was signed which curbed powers of the German empire, further humiliating and
weakening it.

World War II
(September 3, 1939 to August 14, 1945)

Causes: An unjust Treaty of Versailles, improper behavior of France, rise policy of

expansion, and imperialism of England and France were some of the causes behind World
War II.

Main Contestants
Axis Powers ? also called the central powers which included Germany, Italy and Japan.
Allied Powers ? Britain, France, Russia, US, Poland and Benelux countries.

Results of World War II

Hitler, who was responsible for this war, initially very successful but later met with strong
resistance when he attacked Russia in 1941, and was forced to retreat to Berlin. On
learning that Germany had collapsed, he committed suicide on April 30, 1945 in Berlin.
Germany was divided into two parts. East Germany under Russia and West Germany
under the control of England, France and America (allies). Russia emerged as the single
biggest power in the world. It was at this time that the struggle for freedom in colonies
under European control in Asia (India), Myanmar (Burma), Sri Lanka (Ceylon), Malaysia
(Malaya). Egypt etc. caught on. The British Empire thus rapidly lost its leadership as more
and more colonies won independence. The UNO was then established in 1945. When
Japan did not agree to the demands of the allied powers to surrender, the first atom bomb
was dropped on Hiroshima on August 5, 1945 and the second on Nagasaki on August9,
1945. Japan then surrendered unconditionally on August 14, 1945 and World War II
ended.

__________________________________________________ __
__________________
When Problems are so Big & Your Strength is no Longer enough to CaRRy them, Don't
Give uP; Because where your Strength Ends the Grace of Almighty ALLAH Begins

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Asif Yousufzai For This Useful Post:

engr izhar ul haq (Wednesday, August 10, 2011), sultanakbar (Friday, October 07, 2011)
#10
Wednesday, June 08, 2011

Join Date: Nov 2007

Asif Yousufzai Location: DreAm LanD
Senior Member Posts: 583
Thanks: 173
Thanked 1,078 Times in 408 Posts

The Great Game......

The Great Game

(A Synopsis)

Lord Curzon said “Whoever controls Central Asia, controls the world.” He then tried to
control Afghanistan with his “On to the Oxus” policy which ended in ignominious defeat
leading to the “Back to the Indus” retreat. The British never ventured into the wild wild
west and Peshawar never really flew the Union Jack. The Mongols, and Alexander faced
severe problems in Pakistan and Afghanistan. That is why Afghanistan and Pakistan are
often called the graveyard of empires. Archives reflect a historical a historical perspective
encapsulated by Rudyard Kipling and others. This was dubbed the Great Game by the
British and Russian in the 19th century.
The Anglo-Russian Great Game 1813-1907
Catherine th Great had bequeathed her progeny to control the warm waters of the
Arabian Sea. This was the reason the Tsars tried to make their way down to “Kolachi jo
goth” (Karachi). The so-called classical “Great Game” was about Imperial Britain and
Tzarist Russia attempting to control Central Asia. Russia was expanding into Central Asia
at the time. Tsarist forays into Central Asia led to British concerns that Moscow would
threaten te British Empire. The Union Jack attempted to bring the wild tribes of Pakistan
and Afghanistan under British jurisdiction. London Afghanistan twice in an attempt to
place British puppets in Kabul and other areas of the region. At the time there was no
“Afghanistan”. The country was a construct of the Tsars and the British colonialists. They
demarcated the borders and created a non-mans land–a buffer region between the British
and Russian empires. Thus a non-entity called “Afghanistan” came into existence. For the
past century, the entire world has been trying to make this entity a reality. All have failed.
, the first famously ending in the complete destruction of the invading British army. The
Great Game subsided a bit when ended when the the USSR came into existence –Britain
ceased to exist as a world power and the Soviets were more interested in Europe than
South Asia.

The Anglo-Soviet Great Game 1917-1941

The downsizing of the Ottoman Empire and the ascendancy off the USSR and Lenin’s and
Stalin’s desire to extend the borders of mother Russia into unchartered territory created
new tensions. Britain got embroiled in Afghanistan again. It fought a third Afghan war to
settle the border between Afghanistan and the British Empire. The artifical state of
Afghanistan, which had never existed in history came into being. It was sequestered on
one side by the Durand Line and the other by the Amu Darya (fka Oxus). The principality
of Kabul became an entity, and it brought other regions under its control. It failed
miserably to create federal structures in the Hindu Kush. The advent of World War II too
the rivalry to another level. Both Britain and Russia got tangled up in various webs during
the Cold war.

The USSR-USA Great Game 1979-1989

There are many reasons for the invasion of Kabul by the USSR. It is said that Amin’s coup
against King Zahir Shah was an attempt to change the status quo, and to realign Kabul
with Washington. This was seen as a direct provocation by the progeny of Catherine the
Great. To prevent the American take over of the territory between the Indus and the
Oxus, the USSR sent troops in Afghanistan in 1979. Babrak Kamal supposedly rode to
Moscow on a Russian tank. The Soviet troops arrived ostensibly on the request of the
legal government in Kabul. The world didn’t see it that way. Pakistan was the first
government to oppose the Russian expansionism, because it saw it as a direct threat to
Islamabad. Delhi supported the Russian move. Moscow wanted to end the widespread
tribal revolts against Kabul. For two years the Pakistanis were the only ones fighting the
Russians. In 1981 the US and its allies began providing financial and military support to
the Afghan freedom fighters–all routed through the ISI. Millions of Muslim kids were
recruited by the CIA to fight for the US and destroy the USSR. One of those who came to
fight for America was Osama Bin Laden. After the USSR withdrew out of the Hindu Kush,
the US lost interest. As a parting thank you note, it delivered the Pressler Amendment to
Islamabad–ten years of debilitating sanctions. Afghanistan descended into Civil War and
Pakistan got the present of the Drug and Kalashnikov culture. As Imran Khan said, the
American did their deed and left us to clean the mess. , leaving the mujahideen to fight it
out among themselves. The Talibs were a US attempt to bring sanity to the Khyber and
beyond.
American-Taliban Great Game 2001-2011
Ostensibly it was the 9/11 attack in New York that led the US to invade Afghanistan. Many
claim that the Afghan invasion was planned way before September 2001. The US
leveraged the Tajik led Northern Alliance to oust the Pakhtuns from power. The Taliban
regime fell and was replaced by the present Afghan president, Hamid Karzai. As the Bush
Administration got bogged down in Iraq and reduced its military presence the Talibs
began to control most of Afghan territory. Bharat and America attempted to destabilize
Pakistan using fake movements like the TTP which were constructs of RAW and the CIA.
The US withdrawal from Afghanistan will begin in July 2011. The Abbotabad raid provided
the US the victory needed which would precipitate a speedy withdrawal without the
baggage of “Cut and Run” As Dr. Jamil has pointed out the “Great Game” has been going
on for millenia.

ANCIENT PROTO-HISTORY GREAT GAME:

If we take the history back to abt 5000 yrs ago when none had heard about Jews, Greeks,
Iran, Russia– Indus river was the boundary between a rich South Asia/Punjab and
impoverished West. The Akkadian-Assyrian Arabs, and their Eastern enemy mostly under
control of the Elamite (Dravidian’s linguistic cousins). The game was to control South
Asian trade surpluses. The Assyrian Arabs had predominant control up to the Indus–they
had one tribute paying Hindu king in Punjab-Indus valley–Jibra of Malluhva. Later in
history Pre -Greek era, Cyrus/Darius had wrested control of Arab lands plus the area West
of Indus. After that we see Sessanid Iran on the rise after a short Greek interlude.

Lesson from all these histories is transparent–locals (now Pakistan + Afghanistan) are the
owners. Pakistan controls both sides of the Indus and being a regional power (5th largest
army + Nuclear arms), has the responsibility for regional peace. The US and China cannot
do a thing without Pakistan. India wants to only defend ” Hindu nationalism” and will be
always shy of wars. Pakistan thus directly controls even India’s future being a part of
great game.

One sees the critical importance of local players. and the lessons of history (as reviewd by
you) supports the future. As it is clear from ancient most history. What has really changed
? India has lost its ancient importance ” farming surpluses” feeder of the west, due to
industrial revolution since 1800. India is of no military significance to west or east.

The Latest Great Game:

The new Great Game is not about the control of resources–it is about the prevention of
the rise of Muslim Asia.
The perception that crime, especially violent crime, has become one of the most
serious problems facing society has led to determined efforts by many researchers
to find the causes of criminal behavior. Recent studies have found that certain
neurotransmitter imbalances in the brain such as low serotonin, and certain
hormone imbalances such as extra testosterone, are associated with some greater
likelihood of committing crime. Other studies have found that criminals tend to
have slower reactions in their autonomic nervous systems. While some
criminologists infer that these biological conditions increase the tendency to
commit crime, other criminologists point out that all of these biological factors can
be influenced by the environmental conditions. There has been considerable
research, for example, on the influence of diet on crime, with some people arguing
that excessive sugar intake results in increased aggression in juveniles. Consuming
alcohol has a strong relationship with increased aggression in the short run, as does
the consumption of certain illegal drugs. Ingesting various toxic substances such as
lead tends to result in long-term increases in the commit crime. In addition,
complications during pregnancy or birth and certain types of head injuries increase
the risk of crime in the long run. There is, however, a similar problem with
inferring that these environmentally based biological conditions cause crime.

Researchers have focused on biological causes, believing that a biological basis of

criminality exists and that an understanding of the biology will be useful in
predicting which people are predisposed to become criminals. In the 1960s it was
proposed that males with an extra Y chromosome were predisposed to violent
criminal behavior; later work found no support for this hypothesis. Recently, two
approaches, one genetic, the other biochemical, have received widespread
publicity. I would argue that currently approach provides convincing evidence that
criminal behavior can be understood in terms of genetics or biochemistry.
Neurochemicals are responsible for the activation of behavior patterns and
tendencies in specific areas of the brain. As seen in the Brunner et al. study, there
have been attempts to determine the role of neurochemicals in influencing criminal
or antisocial behavior. Included in the list of neurochemicals already cited by
researchers are monoamine oxidase (MAO), epinephrine, nor epinephrine,
serotonin, and dopamine.

Monoamine oxidase (MAO) is an enzyme that has been shown to be related to

antisocial behavior. Specifically, low MAO activity results in disinhibition which
can lead to impulsivity and aggression. The Brunner et al. study is the only one to
report finding of a relationship between a point mutation in the structural gene for
MAOA and aggression, which makes the findings rare. However, there has been
other evidence that points to the conclusion that deficiencies in MAOA activity
may be more common and as a result may predispose individuals to antisocial or
aggressive behavior. MAO is associated with many of the neurochemicals that
already have a link to antisocial or criminal behavior. Nor epinephrine, serotonin,
and dopamine are metabolized by both MAOA and MAOB. While, according
to Eysenck (1996), MAO is not related to nor epinephrine, epinephrine, and
dopamine, which are all related to the personality factor of psychosis.

Serotonin is a neurochemical that plays an important role in the personality traits of

depression, anxiety, and bipolar disorder (Larsen and Buss, 2005). It is also
involved with brain development and a disorder in this system could lead to an
increase in aggressiveness and impulsivity (Morley and Hall, 2003). As
Lowenstein (20030) states, “studies point to serotonin as one of the most important
central neuro-transmitters underlying the modulation of impulsive behavior and
emotional aggression. In addition, children who suffer from conduct disorder, have
also been shown to have low blood serotonin. Needless to say, there is a great deal
of evidence that shows serotonin is related to aggression, which can be further
associated with antisocial or criminal behavior.

Dopamine is a neuro-transmitter in the brain that is associated with pleasure and is

also one of the neurotransmitters that is chiefly associated with aggression.
Activation of both affective (emotionally driven) and predatory aggression is
accomplished by dopamine. Genes in the dopaminergic pathway have also been
found to be involved with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). In
one study cited by Morley and Hall (2003), a relationship was found between the
genes in the dopaminergic pathway, impulsivity, ADHD, and violent offenders.
Obviously, from this list of neurochemicals it seems plausible that there is a
genetic component to antisocial or criminals behavior.