Which among the following statements about the Cold War is wrong ?
- It was a competition between the US and Soviet Union and their respective allies.
- It was an ideological war between the super powers.
- It triggered an arms race.
- The US and USSR were engaged in direct wars.
(iv) The US and USSR were engaged in direct wars.
Which among the following statements does not reflect the objectives of NAM?
- Enabling newly decolonised countries to pursue independent policies.
- Not joining any military alliances.
- Following a policy of ‘neutrality’ on global issues.
- Focus on elimination of global economic inequalities.
(iii) Following a policy of ‘neutrality’ on global issues.
Member countries of the alliance are to provide bases in their respective lands for the super powers.
Member countries to support the super power both in terms of ideology and military strategy.
When a nation attacks any member country, it is considered as an attack on all the member countries.
Super powers assist all the member countries to develop their own nuclear weapons.
Here is a list of countries. Write against each of these the bloc they belonged to during the Cold War.
- North Korea
- Sri Lanka
- Poland ......... Soviet Bloc
- France ......... American Bloc
- Japan ......... American Bloc
- Nigeria ......... Non-aligned
- North Korea ......... Soviet Bloc
- Sri Lanka ......... Non-aligned
The Cold War produced an arms race as well as arms control. What were the reasons for both these developments ?
It is a fact that the Cold War produced an arms race as well as arms control. Mutual suspicions between the two super powers led them to arm themselves to the tests and to constantly prepare for war. Both the super powers considered huge stocks of arms necessary to prevent wars from taking place. However, both the super powers understood that war might occur in spite of restraint. Either side might miscalculate the stock of arms in the possession of the other side. Moreover, super powers might misunderstand the intentions of the other side. Besides, there can be a nuclear accident. Hence both the super powers, i.e. USA and USSR decided to collaborate in limiting or eliminating certain kinds of nuclear and non-nuclear weapons. In 1961 Soviet Union and United States made a joint statement in General Assembly. Both the countries agreed for negotiations towards total disarmament. Partial Test Ban Treaty (1963) was signed by the foreign ministers of the USA, USSR and UK In 1968 the Non-Proliferation Treaty was signed. But India refused to sign this treaty on the ground that it was discriminatory in nature. The Threshold Test Ban Treaty was signed on 3rd July 1974 by the two super powers. After these treaties many more treaties were signed by the two super powers to limit their arms.
Why did the super powers have military alliances with smaller countries ? Give three reasons.
“Why did the super powers need smaller states as their allies ?’’ Explain with any four reasons.
Describe any three reasons for the super powers to have military alliances with smaller countries during the Cold War period.
State any four reasons for which the super powers needed smaller states as allies.
The super powers i.e. USA and USSR have military alliances with small states for the reasons given below:
- The smaller countries were helpful for the super powers in gaining access to natural resources such as oil and minerals.
- The smaller states were helpful for the superpowers in gaining access to territory from where the super powers could launch their weapons and troops.
- The super powers could gain access to locations from where they could spy on each other.
- The smaller states together could help pay for military expenses.
Sometimes it is said that the Cold War was a simple struggle for power and that ideology had nothing to do with it. Do you agree with this ? Give one example to support your position.
Cold War was not a simple struggle for power and different ideologies had also played an important role in Cold War. Western allies headed by USA represented the ideology of liberal democracy and capitalism while the Soviet bloc represented the ideology of socialism and communism. Cold War was not only a struggle for power but it was also a conflict of ideology. Super powers were determined to prove that their ideology is better and superior and it could establish world peace and could bring prosperity in the world. The loyality of allies suggested that the super powers were winning the war of ideas as well, that liberal democracy is better than communist dictatorship or vice versa.
What was India’s foreign policy towards the US and USSR during the Cold War era? Do you think that policy helped India’s interests?
During Cold War era India’s foreign policy was based on the principle of non-alignment. It was long before India became free that Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru, when he was in charge of External Affairs in the Interim government, had declared that independent India would keep away from power blocs. In 1946, he declared again that India would follow an independent foreign policy. He said, ‘‘We propose as far as possible, to keep away from the power politics of groups, aligned against one another, which have led in the past to world wars and which may again lead to disaster on an even wider scale.’’ It was, however, after the attainment of independence by India with unique historical experience, geographical situation, and two perceptions of its national interest by enlightened leadership that non-alignment as a policy came to occupy an important position in international relations.
Policy of non-alignment protected India’s interests. By adopting the policy of non-alignment India has been able to maintain her individuality. The policy of non-alignment has helped India to play an active part in world politics. The policy of non-alignment has been a source of friendship for India. By this policy India got economic assistance from the super powers. This policy has been helpful to India for securing her national interests and maintaining its security.
NAM was considered a ‘third option’ by Third World countries. How did this option benefit their growth during the peak of Cold War?
The Cold War tended to divide the world into two blocs i.e. American bloc and Soviet bloc. It was in this context that non-alignment offered the newly decolonised countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America a third option not to join either blocs. The roots of Non-Aligned Movement went back to the friendship between three leaders — India’s Jawaharlal Nehru, Yugoslavia’ Josip Broz Tito and Egypt’s leader Gamal Abdul Nasser. These three leaders held a meeting in 1956. Indonesia’s Sukarno and Ghana’s Kwame Nkrumah supported these leaders. These five leaders are known as the five founders of NAM. The first non-aligned summit was held at Belgrade in 1961. Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru touched on the very philosophy of non-alignment when he said, we call ourselves a conference of nonalignment countries. Now the word ‘Non-aligned’ may be differently interpreted, but it was used and coined almost with the meaning of being opposed to the great power blocs of the world. Non-aligned has negative meaning but if you give it a positive connotation, it means objecting to this living up for war purposes. The first summit was attended by 25 member states. But the 18th summit which was held in Azerbaijan in 2019 was attended by 120 members. Non-aligned movement benefitted the member states in many ways.
What do you think about the statement that NAM has become irrelevant today? Give reasons to support your opinion.
Explain the relevance of NAM in the contemporary scenario.
‘Non-Alignment Movement (NAM) has become irrelevant today.’ Do you agree with the statement? Support your answer with any three suitable arguments.
Examine the relevance of the Non- Alignment Movement after the Cold War.
Non-Aligned Movement was originated in 1961. The main aim of the non-aligned countries was to keep distance from politics based upon groupism. At that time the world was divided into capitalist bloc or American bloc and Communist bloc or Russian bloc. The main aim of non-alignment was to keep away from both the blocs. But now the situation has changed, and the world has become unipolar after disintegration of Soviet Union. And the contemporary international system has rapidly changed from a system characterised by Cold War tensions to a system moving towards peace, security, cooperation and development. These changes have given a rest to the issue of relevance of non-aligned movement. The critics of NAM began arguing that NAM would have either to wind up or to get transformed into a new movement.
On the contrary to these arguments NAM still continues to be a fully relevant movement. Nonalignment was designed as a principle of independent foreign policy in the era of Cold War and biopolarism. Its main objective—independence in interpersonal relations, still continues to be valid. The new emphasis upon peaceful co-existence, cooperation and peaceful resolution of conflict doubly vindicates the principle of NAM. The NAM continues to be the need of time. The Tenth and the Eleventh NAM summits of 1992 and 1995 exhibited the resolve of the member countries to keep up and strengthen one NAM as a group of countries united to oppose the forces of neocolonialism and intervention.
The Non-aligned movement asserted its continued relevance and its determination to uphold the objective to oppose and struggle against injustice, inequality and underdevelopment. NAM is committed to work for the removal of economic inequalities between the developed and the developing countries. It is necessary (1) for securing a place of dignity, honour and equality for the developing countries, (2) for the establishment of the New International economic order, (3) for the democratisation of the international system and its functioning, (4) for the progress of disarmament and denuclearisation. These objectives are of long term nature, hence NAM is destined to remain alive, active and relevant. Summing up we can say that the emergence of unipolarism both in the power structure and ideology has not reduced the relevance of NAM in international relations. The Non-aligned countries continue to follow it and are keen to strengthen it. Thus it continues to be fully relevant even today.