An International

Relations
Assignment

Topic: International Security

Submitted To:

Prof Somu

Submitted By:

Afzal A. Rehman (08D1610)

Gautham Raju (08D1622)

Sai Sumanth (08D1636)

Robin Zacharias (08D1642)

Tom George (08D1656)

Tony Antony (08D1657)

Jitcy Mathew (08D1673)

 INTERNATIONAL
SECURITY
International security consists of the measures taken by nations and international
organizations, such as the United Nations, to ensure mutual survival and safety.
These measures include military action and diplomatic agreements such as
treaties and conventions. International and national security are invariably
linked. International Security is also the name of an academic journal dedicated
to international and national security.

Approaches to Security

There are, in essence, four possible approaches to securing peace. Unlimited

self-defence; the first of the four approaches, is the traditional approach of each
country being responsible for its own defence and amassing weapons it wishes
for that defence. The thinking behind this approach rests on the classic realist
assumption that humans have an inherent element of greed and aggressiveness
that promotes individual and collective violence. This makes the international
system, from the realists’ perspective, a place of danger where each state must
fend for itself or face the perils of domination or destruction by other states.
Beyond the traditional approach to security, there are three alternative
approaches: international security (regional and world security forces), limited
self-defence (arms limitations), and abolition of war (complete disarmament and
pacifism). Each of these will be examined in the pages that follow. Realists do
not oppose arms control or even international peacekeeping under the right
circumstances. Realists, for instance, recognize that the huge arsenals of
weapons that countries possess are dangerous and, therefore, there can be merit
in carefully negotiated, truly verifiable arms accords. But because the three
alternative approaches all involve some level of trust and depend on the triumph
of the spirit of human cooperation over human avarice and power-seeking, they
are all more attractive to liberals than to realists.
Traditional security
The Traditional Security paradigm refers to a realist construct of security in
which the referent object of security is the state. The prevalence of this theorem
reached a peak during the Cold War. For almost half a century, major world
powers entrusted the security of their nation to a balance of power among states.
In this sense international stability relied on the premise that if state security is
maintained, then the security of citizens will necessarily follow. Traditional
security relied on the anarchistic balance of power, a military build-up between
the US and the Soviet Union (the two superpowers), and on the absolute
sovereignty of the nation-state. States were deemed to be rational entities,
national interests and policy driven by the desire for absolute power. Security
was seen as protection from invasion; executed during proxy conflicts using
technical and military capabilities.

As Cold War tensions receded, it became clear that the security of citizens was
threatened by hardships arising from internal state activities as well as external
aggressors. Civil wars were increasingly common and compounded existing
poverty, disease, hunger, violence and human rights abuses. Traditional security
policies had effectively masked these underlying basic human needs in the face
of state security. Through neglect of its constituents, nation states had failed in
their primary objective.

More recently, the traditional state centric notion of security has been
challenged by more holistic approaches to security. Among approaches which
seek to acknowledge and address these basic threats to human safety are
paradigm includes cooperative, comprehensive, collective measures, aimed to
ensure security for the individual and, as a result, for the state.

To enhance international security and potential threats caused by terrorism and

organised crime increased co-operation within police forces internationally has
been applied. The international police Interpol shares information across
international borders and this co-operation has been greatly enhanced by the
arrival of the internet and the ability to transfer documents, film and
photographs worldwide instantly.

The government's first Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) programs were

created in 1991 to eliminate the former Soviet Union's nuclear, chemical, and
other weapons and prevent their proliferation. The programs have accomplished
a great deal: deactivating thousands of nuclear warheads, neutralizing chemical
weapons, converting weapons facilities for peaceful use, and redirecting the
work of former weapons scientists and engineers, among other efforts.
International Security Forces
The idea of forming international security forces to supplement or replace
national military forces is another approach to seeking security on the road
less travelled by. This approach would enhance, not compete with, arms
control. Organizing for international security would emphasize international
organizations and de-emphasize national defence forces. Thus both the
approaches arms control and international security forces are mutually
supportive

United Nations
The United Nations Organization (UNO) or simply United Nations (UN) is an
international organization whose stated aims are facilitating cooperation in
international law, international security, economic development, social progress,
human rights, and the achieving of world peace. The UN was founded in 1945
after World War II to replace the League of Nations, to stop wars between
countries, and to provide a platform for dialogue. It contains multiple subsidiary
organizations to carry out its missions.

There are currently 192 member states, including nearly every sovereign state in
the world. From its offices around the world, the UN and its specialized
agencies decide on substantive and administrative issues in regular meetings
held throughout the year. The organization has six principal organs: the General
Assembly (the main deliberative assembly); the Security Council (for deciding
certain resolutions for peace and security); the Economic and Social Council
(for assisting in promoting international economic and social cooperation and
development); the Secretariat (for providing studies, information, and facilities
needed by the UN); the International Court of Justice (the primary judicial
organ); and the United Nations Trusteeship Council (which is currently
inactive). Other prominent UN System agencies include the World Health
Organization (WHO), the World Food Programme (WFP) and United Nations
Children's Fund (UNICEF). The UN's most visible public figure is the
Secretary-General, currently Ban Ki-moon of South Korea, who attained the
post in 2007. The organization is financed from assessed and voluntary
contributions from its member states, and has six official languages: Arabic,
Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish.
Organization
The United Nations system is based on five principal organs (formerly six – the
Trusteeship Council suspended operations in 1994); the General Assembly, the
Security Council, the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), the Secretariat,
and the International Court of Justice.

Four of the five principal organs are located at the main United Nations
headquarters located on international territory in New York City. The
International Court of Justice is located in The Hague, while other major
agencies are based in the UN offices at Geneva, Vienna, and Nairobi. Other UN
institutions are located throughout the world. The six official languages of the
United Nations, used in intergovernmental meetings and documents, are Arabic,
Chinese, English, French, Russian, and Spanish, while the Secretariat uses two
working languages, English and French. Five of the official languages were
chosen when the UN was founded; Arabic was added later in 1973. The United
Nations Editorial Manual states that the standard for English language
documents is British usage and Oxford spelling, the Chinese writing standard is
Simplified Chinese. This replaced Traditional Chinese in 1971 when the UN
representation of China was changed from the Republic of China to People's
Republic of China.

General Assembly
The General Assembly is the main deliberative assembly of the United Nations.
Composed of all United Nations member states, the assembly meets in regular
yearly sessions under a president elected from among the member states. Over a
two-week period at the start of each session, all members have the opportunity
to address the assembly. Traditionally, the Secretary-General makes the first
statement, followed by the president of the assembly.

Security Council
The Security Council is charged with maintaining peace and security among
countries. While other organs of the United Nations can only make
'recommendations' to member governments, the Security Council has the power
to make binding decisions that member governments have agreed to carry out,
under the terms of Charter Article 25. The decisions of the Council are known
as United Nations Security Council resolutions. The Security Council is made
up of 15 member states, consisting of five permanent members – China, France,
Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States – and 10 non-permanent
members.
Secretariat
The United Nations Secretariat is headed by the Secretary-General, assisted by a
staff of international civil servants worldwide. It provides studies, information,
and facilities needed by United Nations bodies for their meetings. It also carries
out tasks as directed by the UN Security Council, the UN General Assembly, the
UN Economic and Social Council, and other UN bodies. The United Nations
Charter provides that the staff be chosen by application of the "highest standards
of efficiency, competence, and integrity," with due regard for the importance of
recruiting on a wide geographical basis.

NATO
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization also called "the (North) Atlantic
Alliance", is an intergovernmental military alliance based on the North Atlantic
Treaty which was signed on 4 April 1949. The NATO headquarters are in
Brussels, Belgium, and the organization constitutes a system of collective
defence whereby its member states agree to mutual defence in response to an
attack by any external party.

For its first few years, NATO was not much more than a political association.
However, the Korean War galvanized the member states, and an integrated
military structure was built up under the direction of two U.S. supreme
commanders. The first NATO Secretary General, Lord Ismay, famously stated
the organization's goal was "to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the
Germans down". Doubts over the strength of the relationship between the
European states and the United States ebbed and flowed, along with doubts over
the credibility of the NATO defence against a prospective Soviet invasion—
doubts that led to the development of the independent French nuclear deterrent
and the withdrawal of the French from NATO's military structure from 1966.

After the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, the organization became drawn into the
Balkans while building better links with former potential enemies to the east,
which culminated with several former Warsaw Pact states joining the alliance in
1999 and 2004. On 1 April 2009, membership was enlarged to 28 with the
entrance of Albania and Croatia. Since the 11 September attacks, NATO has
attempted to refocus itself to new challenges and has deployed troops to
Afghanistan as well as trainers to Iraq.

The Berlin Plus agreement is a comprehensive package of agreements made

between NATO and the European Union on 16 December 2002. With this
agreement, the EU was given the possibility to use NATO assets in case it
wanted to act independently in an international crisis, on the condition that
NATO itself did not want to act—the so-called "right of first refusal". Only if
NATO refused to act would the EU have the option to act. The combined
military spending of all NATO members constitutes over 70% of the world's
defence spending, with the United States alone accounting for about half the
total military spending of the world and the United Kingdom, France, Germany,
and Italy accounting for a further 15%.

War saw Pact

The Warsaw Treaty (1955–91) is the informal name for the mutual defence
Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Mutual Assistance commonly known as
the Warsaw Pact subscribed by eight communist states in Eastern Europe, which
was established at the USSR’s initiative and realised on 14 May 1955, in
Warsaw, Poland. In the Communist Bloc, the treaty was the military analogue of
the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (CoMEcon), the Communist
(East) European Economic Community. The Warsaw Treaty was the Soviet
Bloc’s military response to West Germany’s May 1955 integration to NATO
Pact, per the Paris Pacts of 1954.

Structure
The Warsaw Treaty’s organisation was two-fold: the Political Consultative
Committee handled civil matters, and the Unified Command of Pact Armed
Forces controlled the assigned multi-national forces, with headquarters in
Warsaw, Poland. Furthermore, the Supreme Commander of the Warsaw Treaty
forces also was the First Deputy Minister of Defence of the USSR, and the head
of the Warsaw Treaty Unified Staff was the First Deputy Head of General Staff
of the Armed Forces of the USSR. Therefore, although ostensibly an
international collective security alliance, USSR Dominated the Warsaw Treaty
armed forces, as the USA dominated NATO Pact.

Eastern Europe after the Warsaw Treaty

On 12 March 1999, the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland joined NATO
Pact; later, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, and Slovakia joined
during March 2004; and Albania joined on 1 April 2009. In November 2005, the
conservative Polish government opened its Warsaw Treaty archives to the
Institute of National Remembrance who published some 1,300 declassified
documents in January 2006. Yet the Polish government reserved publication of
100 documents, pending their military declassification. Among the documents
published is the Warsaw Treaty 's nuclear war plan, Seven Days to the River
Rhine — a short, sharp, shock capturing Western Europe, using nuclear
weapons, in self-defence, after a NATO first strike. The plan originated as a
1979 field training exercise war game, and metamorphosed into official Warsaw
Treaty battle doctrine, until the late 1980s — thus why the People’s Republic of
Poland was a nuclear weapons base, first, to 178, then, to 250 tactical-range
rockets.

Arms Control
Arms control is an umbrella term for restrictions upon the development,
production, stockpiling, proliferation, and usage of weapons, especially
weapons of mass destruction. Arms control is typically exercised using
diplomacy, which seeks to impose such limitations upon consenting participants
through international treaties and agreements, although it may also comprise
efforts by a nation or group of nations to enforce limitations upon a non-
consenting country.

On a national or community level, arms control can amount to programs to

control the access of private citizens to weapons. This is often referred to as gun
politics, as firearms are the primary focus of such efforts in most places.

Enactment
Arms control treaties and agreements are often seen as a way to avoid costly
arms races, which would prove counter-productive to national aims and future
peace. Some are used as ways to stop the spread of certain military technologies
in return for assurances to potential developers that they will not be victims of
those technologies. Additionally, some arms control agreements are entered to
limit the damage done by warfare, especially to civilians and the environment,
which is seen as bad for all participants regardless of who wins a war.

While many peace proponents see arms control treaties as a key tool against
war, by the participants, they are often seen as simply ways to limit the high
costs of the development and building of weapons, and even reduce the costs
associated with war itself.

Methods of Achieving Arms Control

There are many methods to control arms in order to limit or even reduce their
number and to prevent their spread. These methods include numerical
restrictions; research, development, and deployment restrictions; categorical
restrictions; and transfer restrictions.

Numerical restrictions
Placing numerical limits above, at, or below the current level of existing
weapons is the most common approach to arms control. This approach specifies
the number or capacity of weapons and/or troops that each side may possess. In
some cases the numerical limits may be at or higher than current levels. For
example, both the first and second Strategic Arms Limitations Talks treaties, the
two Strategic Arms Reduction Treaties (START II and I), and the Treaty of
Moscow (2002) have combined to significantly reduce the number of American
and Russian nuclear weapons. Although the Russian Duma refused to ratify
START II unless the United States agreed to cease developing a national missile
defence system, both countries later agreed to cuts in their nuclear arsenals that
in many cases will exceed the reductions outlined in the treaty.

Categorical restrictions
A second approach to arms control involves limiting or eliminating certain types
of weapons. The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) eliminated an
entire class of weapons—intermediate-range nuclear missiles. The new Anti-
Personnel Mine Treaty will make it safer to walk the Earth.

Development, testing, and deployment restrictions

A third method of limiting arms involves a sort of military birth control that
ensures that weapons systems never begin their gestation period of development
and testing or, if they do, they are never deployed. The advantage of this
approach is that it stops a specific area of arms building before it starts. For
instance, the countries that have ratified the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
(NPT) and that do not have such weapons agree not to develop them. A related
approach for weapons that have already been developed is to prohibit their
deployment in certain geographic areas. The deployment of military weapons in
Antarctica, the seabed, space, and elsewhere is, for example, banned.

Transfer restrictions
A fourth method of arms control is to prohibit or limit the flow of weapons and
weapons technology across international borders. Under the NPT, for example,
countries those have nuclear weapons or nuclear weapons technology pledge not
to supply nonnuclear states with weapons or the technology to build them.

The Barriers to Arms Control

Limiting or reducing arms is an idea that most people favour. Yet arms control
has proceeded slowly and sometimes not at all. The devil is in the details, as the
old maxim goes, and it is important to review the continuing debate over arms
control to understand its history and status. None of the factors that we are about
to discuss is the main culprit impeding arms control. Nor is any one of them
insurmountable. Indeed, important advances are being made on a number of
fronts. However, together, these factors form a tenacious resistance to arms
control.

Security Barriers

Security concerns constitute perhaps the most formidable barrier to arms

control. Those who hold to the realist school of thought have strong doubts
about whether countries can maintain adequate security if they disarm totally or
substantially. Realists are cautious about the current political scene and about
the claimed contributions of arms control.

The Possibility of Future Conflict

Worries about the future are probably the greatest barrier to arms control. For
example, the anxiety during the cold war that spawned a huge arms build-up had
no sooner begun to fade than fears about the threat of terrorists and ”rogue”
states with weapons of mass destruction escalated in the aftermath of 9/11. In
the United States that spurred the Bush administration to move toward building
mini-nukes. One projected use is as “bunker busters.” Secretary of Defence
Donald Rumsfeld told senators in 2003 that exploring the development of mini-
nukes was justified because “the world is experiencing an enormous amount of
underground tunnelling ...for [weapons] production, for development, [and] for
storage.”
Doubts about the Value of Arms Control

Those who have doubts about arms control are also sceptical about its supposed
benefits. They tend to disbelieve the often-heard arguments that arms races
occur and that reducing arms will increase security. The sceptics therefore reject
the idea that arms control agreements necessarily represent progress. Arms
control advocates argue that weapons create insecurity and tensions that can
lead to war. Arms control sceptics doubt it. Instead, a classic tenet of realpolitik
is that humans arm themselves and fight because the world is dangerous, Given
this view, realists believe that political settlements should be achieved before
arms reductions are negotiated. Liberals, by contrast, agree with Homer’s
observation in the Odyssey (ca. 700 B.C) that “the blade itself incites to
violence.” While the logic of arms races seems obvious, empirical research has
not confirmed that arms races always occur. Similarly, it is not clear whether
decreases in arms cause or are caused by periods of improved international
relations. Instead, a host of domestic and international factors influence a
country’s level of armaments. What this means is that the most probable answer
to the chicken and-egg debate about which should come first, political
agreements or arms control, lies in a combination of these theories. That is,
arms, tension, and wars all promote one another. There are even arms control
sceptics who argue that more weapons equal greater strength. This line of
thought was evident in President Ronald Reagan’s mantra, “Peace through
strength.” From this perspective, it is even possible that nuclear arms have
increased security.

Verification Barriers

The problem is simple: Countries suspect that others will cheat. This worry was
a significant factor in the rejection of the CTBT by the U.S. Senate. Majority
Leader Trent Lott characterized the treaty as ”ineffectual because it would not
stop other nations from testing or developing nuclear weapons, but it could
preclude the United States from taking appropriate steps to ensure the safety and
reliability of the U.S. nuclear arsenal.”

Possible cheating can be divided into two types: break-out cheating and creep-
out cheating. A violation significant enough by itself to endanger your security
would constitute a break-out. This possibility worries sceptics of arms control.
Some are also hesitant about arms control because they believe there might be a
reluctance to respond to creep-out cheating. In this scenario, no single violation
would be serious enough by itself to create a crisis or warrant termination of the
treaty. Yet the impact of successive and progressive violations might seriously
upset the balance of forces.

There have been great advances in verification procedures and technologies.

The most important recent procedural advance is increased on-site inspection
(OS!). Countries are increasingly willing to allow others to inspect their
facilities, but even OSI is not fool proof, especially if the other side is not
cooperative. National technical means (NTM) of verification using satellites,
seismic measuring devices, and other equipment have also advanced rapidly.
These have been substantially offset, however, by other technologies that make
NTM verification more difficult.

Domestic Barriers

All countries are complex decision-making organizations. Even if they favour

arms control, leaders have numerous other powerful domestic political actors
that they must work with or, perhaps, overcome in the policy-making process.
Some of the opposition that leaders face when they try to restrain or reduce arms
comes from the ideological differences and policy doubts expressed above. In
addition to these security and technical issues, other domestic opposition to
arms control often stems from national pride and from the interrelationship
among military spending, the economy, and politics.
National Pride

The Book of Proverbs tells us that “pride goeth before destruction,” and this
statement is equally applicable to modern arms acquisitions. Whether we are
dealing with conventional or nuclear arms, national pride is a primary drive
behind their acquisition. For many countries, arms represent a tangible symbol
of strength and sovereign equality. EXPLOSION OF SELF-ESTEEM read one
newspaper headline in India after that country’s nuclear tests in 1998. LONG
LIVE NUCLEAR PAKISTAN read a Pakistani newspaper headline soon
thereafter. ”Five nuclear blasts have instantly transformed an extremely
demoralized nation into a self-respecting proud nation . . . having full faith in
their destiny,” the accompanying article explained.’ Such emotions have also
seemingly played a role in Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons program. ”I hope we
get our atomic weapons,” Shirzad Bozorgmehr, editor of Iran News, commented
in 2003 amid international pressure on Tehran to comply with the Non-
Proliferation Treaty. ”If Israel has it, we should have it. If India and Pakistan do,
we should, too,” he explained.’

Military Spending, the Economy, and Politics

Supplying the military is big business, and economic interest groups pressure
their governments to build and to sell weapons and associated technology.
Furthermore, cities that are near major military installations benefit from jobs
provided on the bases and from the consumer spending of military personnel
stationed on the bases. For this reason, defence-related corporations, defence
plant workers, civilian employees of the military, and the cities and towns in
which they reside and shop are supporters of military spending and foreign
sales. Additionally, there are often bureaucratic elements, such as ministries of
defence, in alliance with the defence industry and its workers. Finally, both
interest groups and bureaucratic actors receive support from legislators who
represent the districts and states that benefit from military spending. This
alliance between interest groups, bureaucracies, and legislators forms a military-
industrial-congressional complex that has been termed the iron triangle.

Abolition of War
The last of the four approaches to security is the abolition of war. Abolition of
war is divided into two parts: complete disarmament and pacifism.

Complete Disarmament

The most sweeping approach to arms control is simply to disarm. The principal
argument in favour of disarmament is, as noted, the idea that without weapons
people will not fight. This rests in part on sheer inability. General and
complete disarmament (GCD) might be accomplished either through
unilateral disarmament or through multilateral negotiated disarmament. In the
case of unilateral disarmament, a country would dismantle its arms. Its safety, in
theory, would be secured by its nonthreatening posture, which would prevent
aggression, and its example would lead other countries to disarm also. Unilateral
disarmament draws heavily on the idea of pacifism, or a moral and resolute
refusal to fight. The unilateral approach also relies on the belief that it is arms
that cause tension rather than vice versa. Negotiated disarmament between two
or more countries is a more limited approach. Advocates of this path share the
unilateralists’ conviction about the danger of war. They are less likely to be true
pacifists, however, and they believe one-sided disarmament would expose the
peace pioneer to unacceptable risk. The GCD approach has few strong
advocates among today’s political leaders. Even those who do subscribe to the
ideal also search for intermediate arms limitation steps.

Pacifism

The second war-avoidance approach, pacifism, relies on individuals. As such, it

very much fits in with the idea that people count and that you can affect world
politics if you try. Unlike other approaches to security, pacifism is a bottom-up
approach that focuses on what people do rather than a top-down approach that
stresses government action. Pacifism begins with the belief that it is wrong to
kill.

There are universal pacifists, who oppose all violence; private pacifists, who
oppose personal violence but who would support as a last resort the use of
police or military force to counter criminals or aggressors; and anti-war
pacifists, who oppose political violence but would use violence as a last resort
for personal self-defence.

The obvious argument against pacifism is that it is likely to get one killed or
conquered. Those who support pacifism make several counter-contentions. One
is that there is a history of pacifism being effective. As one scholar points out,
“Nonviolence is as old as the history of religious leaders and movements.” The
analyst goes on to explain that ”traditions embodied by Buddha and Christ have
inspired successful modern political movements and leaders such as] ... the
Indian struggle for independence under the leadership of Gandhi and the
struggle of the American blacks for greater equality under the leadership of
Martin Luther King Jr.”

Gandhi was the great Indian spiritual leader. He began his career as a London
trained attorney earning what was then an immense sum of £5,000 annually
practicing in Bombay. Soon, however, he went to South Africa, where, earning
£50 a year, he defended Indian expatriates against white legal oppression.
Gandhi returned to India in 1915 to work for its independence. He gave up
Western ways for a life of abstinence and spirituality. Gandhi believed that the
force of the soul focused on (to use the Hindi) Satyagraha (truth seeking) and
ahimsa (nonviolence) could accomplish what resorting to arms could not. He
developed techniques such as unarmed marches, sit-downs by masses of people,
work stoppages, boycotts, and what might today be called ”pray-ins,” whereby
satyagralti (truth seekers) could confront the British non-violently. ”The sword
of the satyagrain is love,” he counselled the Indian people. Gandhi became
known as Mahatma (great soul) and was the single most powerful force behind
Great Britain’s granting of independence to India in 1947. The Mahatma then
turned his soul toward ending the hatred and violence between Hindus and
Muslims in independent India. For this, a Hindu fanatic, who objected to
Gandhi’s tolerance, assassinated him in 1948. Earlier, after the United States
had dropped atomic bombs on Japan, Gandhi was moved to write, “Humanity
has to get out of violence only through nonviolence. Hatred can be overcome
only by love. Counter-hatred only increases the surface as well as the depth of
hatred.” One has to suspect that had he been able to, Gandhi would have
repeated this to the man who shot him. Pacifists, especially anti-war pacifists,
would also make a moral case against the massive, collective violence that is
war. They would say that no gain is worth the loss.

A final point about pacifism is that it is not an irrelevant exercise in idealist

philosophy. There are some countries, such as Japan, where at least limited
pacifism represents a reasonably strong political force. Moreover, in a changing
world, public opinion, economic measures, and other nonviolent instruments
may create what is sometimes called a ”civilian-based defence.” Indeed, there
are efforts, such as the Program on Nonviolent Sanctions in Conflict and
Defence at Harvard University’s Center for International Affairs, that are
working to show that those who favour nonviolence should not be considered
”token pacifists” who are ”tolerated as necessary to fill out the full spectrum of
alternatives, with nonviolent means given serious considerations only for use in
noncritical situations” . Instead, advocates of this approach believe that the
successes of Gandhi, King, and others demonstrate that proactive techniques,
including nonviolent protest and persuasion, non-cooperation, and nonviolent
intervention (such as sit—ins), can be successful. It is true that pacifists are
unlikely to be able to reverse world conflict by themselves. They are a tiny
minority everywhere. Instead, pacifism may be part of a series of so-called
peace creation actions. It is an idea worth contemplating.

Counter-terrorism
Counter-terrorism is the practices, tactics, techniques, and strategies that
governments, militaries, police departments and corporations adopt in response
to terrorist threats and/or acts, both real and imputed.

The tactic of terrorism is available to insurgents and governments. Not all

insurgents use terror as a tactic, and some choose not to use it because other
tactics work better for them in a particular context. Individuals, such as Timothy
McVeigh, may also engage in terrorist acts such as the Oklahoma City bombing.

If the terrorism is part of a broader insurgency, counter-terrorism may also form

a part of a counter-insurgency doctrine, but political, economic, and other
measures may focus more on the insurgency than the specific acts of terror.
Foreign internal defence (FID) is a term used by several countries for programs
either to suppress insurgency, or reduce the conditions under which insurgency
could develop.

Counter-terrorism includes both the detection of potential acts and the response
to related events.

Anti-terrorism versus counter-terrorism

The concept of anti-terrorism emerges from a thorough examining of the
concept of terrorism as well as an attempt to understand and articulate what
constitutes terrorism in Western terms. In military contexts, terrorism is a tactic,
not an ideology. Terrorism may be a tactic in a war between nation-states, in a
civil war, or in an insurgency.

Counter-terrorism refers to offensive strategies intended to prevent a belligerent,

in a broader conflict, from successfully using the tactic of terrorism. The US
military definition, compatible with the definitions used by NATO and many
other militaries, is "Operations that include the offensive measures taken to
prevent, deter, pre-empt, and respond to terrorism. “In other words, counter-
terrorism is a set of techniques for denying an opponent the use of terrorism-
based tactics, just as counter-air is a set of techniques for denying the opponent
the use of attack aircraft.

Anti-terrorism is defensive, intended to reduce the chance of an attack using

terrorist tactics at specific points, or to reduce the vulnerability of possible
targets to such tactics. "Defensive measures used to reduce the vulnerability of
individuals and property to terrorist acts, to include limited response and
containment by local military and civilian forces."

To continue the analogy between air and terrorist capability, offensive counter-
air missions attack the airfields of the opponent, while defensive counter-air
uses antiaircraft missiles to protect a point on one's own territory. The on-going
Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Sri Lankan Civil War, and Colombian Civil War are
examples of conflicts where terrorism is present, along with other tactics, so that
participants use counter- and anti-terrorism to limit the opponent's use of terror
tactics.
Pre-emptive neutralization
Some countries see pre-emptive attacks as a legitimate strategy. This includes
capturing, killing, or disabling suspected terrorists before they can mount an
attack. Israel, the United States, and Russia have taken this approach, while
Western European states generally do not.

Another major method of pre-emptive neutralization is interrogation of known

or suspected terrorists to obtain information about specific plots, targets, the
identity of other terrorists, whether or not the interrogation subjects himself is
guilty of terrorist involvement. Sometimes more extreme methods are used to
increase suggestibility, such as sleep deprivation or drugs. Such methods may
lead captives to offer false information in an attempt to stop the treatment, or
due to the confusion brought on by it. These methods are not tolerated by
European powers. In 1978 the European Court of Human Rights ruled in the
Ireland v. United Kingdom case that such methods amounted to a practice of
inhuman and degrading treatment, and that such practices were in breach of the
European Convention on Human Rights Article 3.

Non-military preventive actions

The human security paradigm outlines a non-military approach, which aims to
address the enduring underlying inequalities, which fuel terrorist activity.
Causal factors need to be delineated and measures implemented which allow
equal access to resources and sustainability for all people. Such activities
empower citizens providing 'freedom from fear' and 'freedom from want'.

This can take many forms including the provision of clean drinking water,
education, vaccination programs, provision of food and shelter and protection
from violence, military or otherwise. Successful human security campaigns have
been characterized by the participation of a diverse group of actors including
governments, NGOs, and citizens.

Foreign internal defence programs provide outside expert assistance to a

threatened government. FID can involve both non-military and military aspects
of counter-terrorism.

Another preventative action that has been used is the threat of and use of pork
and pork products against radical religious groups that feel that contact with
pork will render them unclean. The bodies of killed terrorists are daubed with
lard and buried wrapped in pigskin.
Military intervention
Terrorism has often been used to justify military intervention in countries where
terrorists are said to be based. That was the main stated justification for the U.S.
invasion of Afghanistan. It was also a stated justification for the second Russian
invasion of Chechnya.

History has shown that military intervention has rarely been successful in
stopping or preventing terrorism. Although military action can disrupt a terrorist
group's operations temporarily, it rarely ends the threat.

Thus repression by the military in itself (particularly if it is not accompanied by

other measures) usually leads to short term victories, but tend to be unsuccessful
in the end. However, new methods such as those taken in Iraq have yet to be
seen as beneficial or ineffectual.

Counter-terrorism tactical units

Today, many countries have special units designated to handle terrorist threats.
Besides various security agencies, there are elite tactical units, also known as
special mission units, whose role is to directly engage terrorists and prevent
terrorist attacks. Such units perform in preventive actions, hostage rescue and
responding to on-going attacks. Countries of all sizes can have highly trained
counter-terrorist teams. Tactics, techniques and procedures for man hunting are
under constant development.

Most of these measures deal with terrorist attacks that affect an area, or threaten
to do so. It is far harder to deal with assassination, or even reprisals on
individuals, due to the short (if any) warning time and the quick exfiltration of
the assassins. Of course, if the assassination is done by a suicide bomber,
exfiltration becomes moot. These units are specially trained in tactics and are
very well equipped for CQB with emphasis on stealth and performing the
mission with minimal casualties. The units include take-over force (assault
teams), snipers, EOD experts, dog handlers and intelligence officers. See
Counter-intelligence and counter-terrorism organizations for national command,
intelligence, and incident mitigation.

The majority of counter-terrorism operations at the tactical level, are conducted

by state, federal and national law enforcement agencies or intelligence agencies.
In some countries, the military may be called in as a last resort. Obviously, for
countries whose military are legally permitted to conduct police operations, this
is a non-issue, and such counter-terrorism operations are conducted by their
military.

Intelligence Agencies and

inter national security
An intelligence agency is a governmental agency that is devoted to information
gathering for purposes of national security and defence. Means of information
gathering may include espionage, communication interception, cryptanalysis,
cooperation with other institutions, and evaluation of public sources. The
assembly and propagation of this information is known as intelligence analysis.

Intelligence agencies can provide the following services for their national
governments.
 • provide analysis in areas relevant to national security;
• give early warning of impending crises;
• serve national and international crisis management by helping to discern
the intentions of current or potential opponents;
• inform national defence planning and military operations;
• protect secrets, both of their own sources and activities, and those of other
state agencies; and
• may act covertly to influence the outcome of events in favour of national
interests

Intelligence agencies are also involved in defensive activities such as counter-

espionage or counter-terrorism.

There is a distinction between "security intelligence" and "foreign intelligence".

Security intelligence pertains to national security threats (e.g. terrorism,
espionage). Foreign intelligence involves information collection relating to the
political or economic activities of foreign states.

Some agencies are accused of being involved in assassination, arms sales, coups
d'état, and the placement of misinformation as well as other covert operations, in
order to support their own or their governments' interests.

Centr al Intelligence Agency

The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) is a civilian intelligence agency of the
United States government.

It is an independent agency responsible for providing national security

intelligence to senior United States policymakers. It also engages in covert
activities at the request of the President of the United States.

It is the successor of the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) formed during

World War II to coordinate espionage activities between the branches of the
United States military. The 1947 National Security Act established the CIA,
affording it "no police or law enforcement functions, either at home or abroad".
One year later, this mandate was expanded to include "sabotage, anti-sabotage,
demolition and evacuation measures...subversion [and] assistance to
underground resistance movements, guerrillas and refugee liberation
movements, and support of indigenous anti-communist elements in threatened
countries of the free world".

The CIA's primary function is to collect information about foreign governments,

corporations, and individuals, and to advise public policymakers. The agency
conducts covert operations and paramilitary actions, and exerts foreign political
influence through its Special Activities Division. The CIA and its
responsibilities changed markedly in 2004. Before December 2004, the CIA was
the main intelligence organization of the US government; it coordinated and
oversaw not only its own activities but also the activities of the US Intelligence
Community (IC) as a whole. The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention
Act of 2004 created the office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI),
which took over some of the government and IC-wide functions. The DNI
manages the IC and therefore the intelligence cycle. The functions that moved to
the DNI included the preparation of estimates of the consolidated opinion of the
16 IC agencies, and the preparation of briefings for the President of the United
States.

Today, the CIA still has a number of functions in common with other countries'
intelligence agencies; see Relationships with foreign intelligence agencies. The
CIA's headquarters is in Langley in McLean, unincorporated Fairfax County,
Virginia, a few miles west of Washington, DC along the Potomac River.

Sometimes, the CIA is referred to euphemistically in government and military

parlance as Other Government Agencies (OGA), particularly when its
operations in a particular area are an open secret. Other terms include The
Company and The Agency.

Resear ch and Analysis

W ing(RAW)
Research and Analysis Wing is India's external intelligence agency. It was
formed in September 1968, after the newly independent Republic of India was
faced with 2 consecutive wars, the Sino-Indian war of 1962 and the India-
Pakistani war of 1965, as it was evident that a credible intelligence gathering
setup was lacking. Its primary function is collection of external intelligence,
counter-terrorism and covert operations. In addition, it is responsible for
obtaining and analysing information about foreign governments, corporations,
and persons, in order to advise Indian foreign policymakers. Until the creation
of R&AW, the Intelligence Bureau handled both internal and external
intelligence.

The R&AW has its headquarters on Lodhi Road in New Delhi. The current
director of the organization is K. C. Verma, a 1971 Jharkhand batch IPS officer.

Formation
RAW started as a wing of the main Intelligence Bureau with 250 employees and
an annual budget of Rs 2 crore. In the early seventies, its annual budget had
risen to Rs 30 crores while its personnel numbered several thousand. In 1971,
Kao had persuaded the Government to set up the Aviation Research Centre
(ARC). The ARC's job was aerial reconnaissance. It replaced the Indian Air
Force's old reconnaissance aircraft and by the mid-70s, R&AW, through the
ARC, had high quality aerial pictures of the installations along the Chinese and
Pakistani borders. Presently, the budget of RAW is speculated to be as high as
$150 million to as low as $31 million.

Objectives
The present RAW objectives include, and are not limited to:

• Monitoring the political and military developments in adjoining countries,

which have direct bearing on India's national security and the formulation
of its foreign policy
• Secondly, moulding international public opinion with the help of the
strong and vibrant Indian diaspora.

In the past, following the Sino-Indian war and due to what were volatile
relations between India and Pakistan, RAW's objectives had also consisted the
following:

• To watch the development of international communism and the schism

between the two big communist nations, the Soviet Union and China. As
with other countries, both powers had direct access to the communist
parties in India.
• To control and limit the supply of military hardware to Pakistan, from
mostly European countries, America and more importantly from China.
Functions
The Secretary (RAW) reported to the Vohra Committee that RAW offices
abroad have limited strength and are largely geared to the collection of military,
economic, scientific and political intelligence. R&AW monitors the activities of
certain organisations abroad only insofar as they relate to their involvement with
narco terrorist elements and smuggling arms, ammunition, explosives, etc. into
India. It does not monitor the activities of criminal elements abroad, which are
mainly confined to normal smuggling without any links to terrorist elements.
The present strength of the Agency’s offices abroad would not permit it to
enlarge its field of activities. If, however, there is evidence to suggest that these
organisations have links with Intelligence agencies of other countries and that
they are being used or are likely to be used by such countries for destabilising
India's economy, it would become RAW’s responsibility to monitor their
activities.

The primary mission of R&AW includes aggressive intelligence collection via

espionage, psychological warfare, subversion and sabotage. RAW maintains
active collaboration with other secret services in various countries. Its contacts
with FSB of Russia, KHAD, the Afghan agency, Israel's Mossad, the CIA and
MI6 have been well-known, a common interest being Pakistan's nuclear
programme. RAW has been active in obtaining information and operating
through third countries like Afghanistan, the United Kingdom, Hong Kong,
Myanmar and Singapore.

R&AW obtains information critical to Indian strategic interests, both by overt

and covert means. The data is then classified and filed with the assistance of the
computer networks. International media centres can easily absorb R&AW
operatives and provide freedom of movement.

Bibliography
Rourke, John T., 1945- International politics on the world stage--- 10th ed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_security

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter_terrorism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_and_Analysis_Wing