Introduction1. Despite the emergent differences between the United States and the Soviet Union, World War II, like all previous great wars, paved the way for a new global system. The Allies’ plan for the new post war structure of peace had begun even as the war raged as early as 1943. Consistent with the expectations that the great powers would cooperate to manage world affairs, China was promised a seat in the United Nations Security Council along with France and the Big Three. The purpose was to guarantee that all of the dominant states would share responsibility for keeping the peace.2. In practice, however the United States and the Soviet Union mattered most. The other major power victors (especially Great Britain) had exhausted themselves during the war and fell form the apex of the world power hierarchy. The vanquished, Germany and Japan also fell from the rank of great powers. Germany was portioned into four occupation zones. Japan having been devastated by atomic bombs and then occupied by the United States, was also removed from the game of great -power politics. Now the American and the Russian held in their hands the destinies of the half of the mankind. In a competition that eventually became as the Cold War, Washington and Moscow used the fledging United Nations not to keep the peace, but to pursue their competition with each others. As the most recent great- power war of the twentieth century, the Cold War still casts its shadow over the post Cold- War geo strategic landscape.3. The Cold War period divided the world into two major power blocs. The American-dominated Western bloc espoused the cause of democracy and capitalism: while the Russian dominated Communist bloc with its socialist ideology, sought to extend its influence. Each side tried to win friends and create spheres of influence, particularly among the new rising nations of Asia and Africa. Smaller powers were drawn into the ambit of Super-Powers as a consequence of tremendous increase in the nuclear arsenal of big powers, with its unlimited capacity for wholesome destruction. The humanity survived the Cold War because it never exploded into hot war, mainly due to the invention of nuclear weapons which worked as deterrence. The competition persisted for forty five years, when during 1987 Gorbachev realized that Soviet economic growth had ceased and its global power had eroded. He decided to end the Cold War and introduce reforms for democracy and market economy. The Cold War finally ended in 1991 with the collapse of Soviet Union. 4. The end of Cold War witnessed a new international political system dominated by USA, the sole global power. It was the one ‘’first rate power’’ with no prospect in the immediate future to rival it. USA emerged the only country with the military, diplomatic, political and economic assets to be the decisive player in any conflict in whatever part of the world it chose to involve her. The balance of power had ended and the world entered into an era of total American hegemony. Aim
5. To analyze the role played by the Cold War from 1945 to 1990 with the focus on its impact on the world order, its criticality in maintenance of stability in the world, highlight the benefits of bipolarity for the weak nations of the world.
PART-1The Cold War
6. Causes of the Cold War[1] . Following were the major causes:-
a. A Conflict of Interests. Realism provides one structural explanation of the Cold War’s determinants: the pre-eminent status of the United States and the Soviet Union at the top of the international hierarchy made each naturally suspicious of the other and their rivalry inescapable. These circumstances gave each superpower reasons to fear and to struggle against the other’s potential global leadership. Undoubtedly the major cause was that each power was striving to protect her interest’s world wide and increase her sphere of influence. Though cooperation was the superpower’s hope and aspiration when World War II ended, they failed to achieve it and soon entered into a conflict of interests.
b. Ideological Incompatibilities. The second interpretation holds that the Cold War was simply an extension of the superpower mutual disdain for each other’s political system and the way of life. There was too much difference in the ideologies of the US and Russia to work out a long term programme of cooperation. Ideological differences made the Cold War a conflict not only between two powerful states but also between two social systems.
c. Misperceptions. A third explanation describes the Cold War as rooted in psychological factors, particularly in the superpower misperceptions of each other’s motives. Their conflicting interests and ideologies were secondary. Mirror images and self fulfilling prophecies contributed heavily to the onset of the Cold War. Misread signals were common to both sides. The Marshal plan, the preparations for the setting up of the West Germany governments, and the first moves towards the establishment of NATO were taken in Moscow as the beginning of a campaign to deprive the Soviet Union of the fruits of its victory over Germany. The Soviet crackdown on Czechoslovakia and the mounting of the Berlin blockade, both essentially defensive, reactions to these Western moves, were then similarly misread on the Western side.
The Characteristics of the Cold War
7. The history of the super powers, Cold War interactions reveal three Primary characteristics as under[2]:-
a. Periods of intense conflict alternated with periods of relative cooperation; and reciprocal, action-reaction exchanges were also evident (friendly US initiative towards the Soviet Union were reciprocated in kind).
b. Both actors were willing to disregard their respective professed ideologies whenever their perceived national interests rationalized such inconsistencies.
c. Throughout the Cold War contest both rivals consistently made avoidance of all out war their highest priority. Throughout a gradual learning process involving push and shove, restraint and reward, tough bargaining and calm negotiations, the super powers crated a security regime, or rules for the peaceful management of their disputes.
8. These characteristics become visible when we inspect the evolution of the superpowers relationship. For this we divide the Cold War into three chronological phases[3].
a. Confrontation (1945 -1962). A brief period of wary Soviet –American friendship soon gave way to mutual antagonism when the Cold War began. In this shot period of unipolarity –one characterized by a single dominant power centre in the international system- the US alone possessed the capacity to devastate its adversaries with the atomic bomb.
(1) Kennan’s Assessment. George F Kennan, a diplomat in the American embassy in Moscow, in 1947, argued that Soviet leaders forever would feel insecure about their political ability to maintain power against forces both within Soviet society and in the outside world. Their insecurity would lead to an active and perhaps aggressive- Soviet foreign policy. However the United Stated had the power to increase the strains under which the Soviet leadership would have to operate, which could lead to a gradual mellowing of final end of Soviet power. Thus Kennan concluded :’’ In these circumstances it is clear that the main element of any United States policy towards the Soviet Union must be that of a long term patient but firm and vigilant containment of Russian expansion tendencies.
(2) Truman Doctrine and Strategy of Containment. Soon thereafter, President Harry S Truman made Kennan’s assessment the corner stone of American post-war policy. Provoked in part by violence in Turkey and Greece, which he and others believed to be communist inspired, Truman declared, ‘’ I believe that it must be the policy of the United States to support free people who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures. Eventually known as the ‘’Truman Doctrine’’, this statement defined the strategy that the United States would pursue for the next forty years to deter the Soviet Union’s perceived hegemonic ambitions, over Kennan’s objectives. This strategy called ‘’containment’’, sought to prevent the expansion of Soviet influence.
(3) Expansion of Cold War. A seemingly endless series of new Cold War crises soon followed, they included the Soviet refusal to withdraw troops from Iran in 1946; the communist coup d’etat in Czechoslovakia in 1948; the Soviet blockade of Western Berlin in June the same year; the communist acquisition of power on the Chinese mainland in 1949; the outbreak of Korean war in 1950; the Chinese invasion of Tibet in 1950; and the on- again, off- again Taiwan Straits crises that followed. The war was no longer merely ‘Cold’. It had become an embittered worldwide quarrel that threatened to escalate into open conflict.
(4) A State of Bipolarity. Nonetheless, superpowers relations began to improve in the 1950s. After the Soviet broke the US atomic monopoly in 1949, shift in the balance of power prompted a movement away from confrontation. The risks of the massive destruction necessitated restrained and changed the terms of the struggle. In particular both superpowers began to expend considerable resources recruiting allies. Their success produced a distribution of military power characterized by bipolarity, with the Unites States and its allies at one pole and the Soviet Union and its allies at the other.
b. From Coexistence to Détente(1963-1978)
(1) Cuban Missile Crises. In 1962 the surreptitious placement of the Soviet missiles in Cuba set the stage for the greatest of the superpowers’ capacity to manage their disputes- the Cuban missile crises, which became Cold War most serious challenge to peace. The superpowers stood eyeball to eyeball. Fortunately, one (the Soviet Union) blinked, and the crises ended.
(2) Moving Towards Coexistence. The growing threat of mutual destruction, in conjunction with the growing parity of American and Soviet military capabilities, made coexistence or non-existence appear to be the only alternatives. At the American university commencement exercises in 1963, US president John F Kennedy explained why tension reduction had become essential and war could not be risked:
‘’Among the many traits the people of (the United States and the Soviet Union) have in common, none is stronger than our mutual abhorrence of war. Almost unique among the major world powers, we have never been at war with each other…
Today, should total war ever breakout again – no matter how our two countries become the primary targets. It is an ironical but accurate fact that the two strongest powers are the two in the most danger of devastation. In short both the United States and its allies, and the Soviet Union and its allies, have a mutually deep interest in a just and genuine peace and in halting the arms race. So let us not be blind to our differences, but let’s also direct attention to our common interests and to the means by which those differences can be resolved. And if we can not end now our differences, at least we can help make the world safe for diversity.’’
(3) Miscellaneous Confidence Building Measures. Kennedy signalled a shift in how the United States hoped thereafter to bargain with its adversary, and the Soviet Union reciprocally expressed its interest in more cooperative relations. Installation in 1963 of the ‘’hot line,’’ a direct communication system linking the White House and the Kremlin, followed. So did the 1967 Glassboro submit and several negotiated agreements, including in 1963, Partial Test Ban Treaty, the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, and the 1968 nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. Thus, in style and tone the United States and the Soviet Union began to depart from the past confrontational tactics, laying the foundation for ‘’détente.’’
(4) Détente. Soviet – American relations took a dramatic turn with Richard Nixon’s election in 1968. Coached by his national security adviser, Hennery A Kissinger, president Nixon initiated a new approach to Soviet relations in1969, when he officially labelled ‘’détente’’. The Soviet also adopted this term to describe their policies towards the United States. In Kissinger’s words, détente sought to create ‘’ a vested interest in cooperation and restraint,’’ ‘’ an environment in which competitors can regulate and restrain their differences and ultimately move from competition to cooperation.’’ This shift in policy produced results, as relations between the Soviets and Americans’’ normalized.
(5) Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT). Arms control stood at the centre of the dialogue surrounding détente. The Strategic Arms Limitations Talks (SALT), initiated in 1969, sought to restrain the threatening, expensive and spiralling arms race. The talks produced two agreements, the first in 1972(SALT -I) and second in 1979(SALT-II). However, SALT-II was signed but never ratified by the United States, due to opposition in Congress. This failure underscored the substantial differences that still separated the superpowers.
c. From Renewed Confrontation to Rapprochement(979 – 1991)
(1) Russian Invasion of Afghanistan and Its Consequences
(a) Despite the careful nurturing of détente, its spirit did not endure. In many respects, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 catalyzed détente’s demise. As President Jimmy Carter viewed it, ‘’ Soviet aggression in Afghanistan unless checked- confronts the entire world with the most serious strategic challenge since the Cold War began.’’ In retaliation, he advanced the ‘’carter doctrine’’ declaring America’s willingness to use military force to protect its interests in the Persian Gulf.
(b) Dangerous events punctuated the renewal of conflict. The soviets destroyed Korean Airline flight 007 in 1983; the United States invaded Grenada soon thereafter. Arms control then ruptured, and the Reagan Doctrine pledged US support to anticommunist insurgents who sought to overthrow Soviet supported government in Afghanistan, Angola, and Nicaragua. In addition American leaders spoke loosely about the ‘’ win ability’’ of a nuclear war through a ‘’prevailing’’ military strategy that included the threat of ‘’first use’’ of nuclear weapons in the event of conventional war. Relations deteriorated as the compound impact of these moves and countermoves took their toll.
(2) Gorbachev’s New Thinking and End of Cold War. The situation did not explode. Instead , the prospects for a more constructive phase improved greatly following Gorbachev’s view that it was vital the Soviet Union practice what he referred to as ‘’new thinking’’ in order to achieve a rapprochement or relaxation of tensions. During 1987, he sought to reconcile the Soviet Union’s differences with the capitalist West in order to halt the deteriorating of his country’s economy and international position. He embarked on domestic reforms to promote democratization and the transition to a market economy. Gorbachev proclaimed his desire to end the Cold War contest. Surprisingly Soviets began to act as an ally instead of an enemy. Building on the momentum created by the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces (IRN) disarmament agreement, signed in 1987, the Soviet Union agreed to end its aid and support for Cuba, withdrew from Afghanistan and Eastern Europe, and announced unilateral reduction in military spending. Gorbachev also agreed to two new disarmament agreements Strategic Arms Reduction Talks (START) for deep cuts in strategic arsenals, and the Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE) treaty to reduce the Soviet presence in Europe. The Cold War which began in Europe and had centred on Europe for forty five years ended there in 1991, when the Soviet Union dissolved. All communist governments in the Soviet bloc in Eastern Europe, including even hard-line Albania, permitted democratic elections in which communist party candidates routinely lost. In all instances, capitalist free market principles replaced socialism, to nearly every ones astonishment, the Soviet Union acquiesced in these revolutionary changes. Without resistance the Berlin Wall came down, Germany reunited and the Warsaw pact dissolved.
PART IICold War and World Stability
9. Though the period of Cold War witnessed many conflicts across the globe, mainly in Asia, Africa and Latin America where super powers were indirectly involved; however a stability of the kind was seen. No single power could dominate the world affairs and dictate her terms to rest of the world. A balance of power was prevailing and the countries were free to choose their allies as per their ideology, national interests and geographical conditions. The Russians though economically and militarily less developed as compared with their Cold War rival, enjoyed enormous influence. Bipolarity resulted into a stable world. Following points further explain this phenomenon:-
a. Formation of NATO and Warsaw Pact. The challenges in Europe influenced the United States to reverse its traditional policy of avoiding permanent alliances; in 1949 the United States and 11 other nations signed the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO). Its members pledged to consider an attack on one an attack on the others. The Communist bloc subsequently in 1955 formed the Warsaw Treaty Organization as a counterbalance to NATO. The formation of these organisations created an environment of balance of power and measure of security for the world.b. Threat of Use of Nuclear Weapons Since the advent of nuclear weapons, the humanity has been subjected twice to horrible devastation by USA i.e. on Hiroshima and Nagasaki towards closing of the WW-II. Japanese had to suffer the holocaust as they did not possess the deterrence capability. The world stability and peace was shattered. However possession of same weapons by USSR prohibited their use by either state during and after the Cold War, resultantly providing stability in the world. c. The Cuban Missile crises Placing of nuclear capable missiles by the Soviet Union at various places at Cuba during 1962 averted the likely American invasion of that country. American knew that any attack on Cuba will initiate nuclear war with Russia. Threat of nuclear war averted the crises.
d. Palestine Crises. Presently atrocities committed by Israel Army against the unarmed Palestinians are being witnessed with shock and deep concern by the world especially the Muslims. No country except America possesses political and military power to stop such injustices. But unfortunately America has always been inclined towards Israel. The situation was not so desperate during the period of Cold War due to Russian support for the Arab World. The prevailing international political environment during 1973 encouraged the Arab states (believing that their complaints against Israel were going unheeded) to launch a surprise attack on Israel in an attempt to soften the pro-Israel stance of the United States. Though the attack failed due to provision of accurate intelligence by American to Israel however it cost Israel heavy in terms of soldiers and equipment. Provision of moral and material support by USSR for the Palestinian and the Arab World provided a kind of stability in the region which is not possible in the present political environment.
e. A State of Equilibrium. Due to two power system American failed to achieve her objectives during wars like Korean, Vietnam etc. They were unable to dictate their terms to other countries as they had to fight a strong opponent on all fronts. Thus a state of equilibrium was achieved. However In the present environments due to absence of any meaningful opponent to American hegemonic policies, the sole super power is free to choose targets across the globe. A handful of Muslim Guerrillas decided to fight against the injustices of Americans. They are being eliminated ruthlessly.
10. Benefits of Bipolarity for Weak Nations
a. Guarding National Interests. The biggest advantage of Cold War era for the weak nations was that, they could guard their national interest’s inline with their political, religious and cultural environments. They were free to ally themselves with any of the super power and use it to their advantage.
b. Non Exploitation. During the period of Cold War, exploitation of weak nations by any one of the super powers was not possible as the other would come for the rescue. However in the present circumstances with the exception of few stronger countries, majority of the countries are liable to be exploited by single world power. Countries like Pakistan have little options as was the case after 9 September, where Pakistan had no option except siding with the Americans.
c. Balance of Power. Bipolarity ensured balance of power. No country could be subjected to submission forcefully by any super power as happening in the present international political environments.
d. More Weight age to UNO. Though UNO was unable to perform its task efficiently, because of rivalries of the Cold War, however it could not be misused by any of the world power.
e. Immediate Conflict Resolution. The weaker nations of the world like countries of Asia, Africa and Latin American could resolve their internal/external disputes by seeking the help from their respective ally. Such help was never conditional, as both the supers power would endeavour to draw maximum countries under their influence. The recent example of Bosnia is a case in point where American did not intervene during 1992-95, when austerities were being perpetuated on Muslim minority by the Serbs. It was only after 1995, owing to lot of criticism that American came in and the issue was resolved. In a bipolar system this could have been resolved in a much earlier time frame.
f. Protection Against Regional Hegemonic States. America being the single dominant power is perusing her goals across the globe by pressurising weaker states through regional hegemonic states. Pakistan allied herself with America and benefited more to her ally than herself during the Cold War. Morally, the interests of Pakistan should have been looked after by America after the end of Cold War. But the things moved in a reverse pattern. India, which was an ally to Russia, emerged as a strategic partner to Americans. Recently, in spite of unconditional support by Pakistan to USA in her fight against terrorism, Americans are still inclined towards India and have failed so far to persuade India to lower the tension in the region. India has massed a huge army on borders with Pakistan. She is pressuring Pakistan through international community to submit to her designs. Such exploitation could have been avoided in a bipolar system of Cold War. More so, countries like Syria, Libya, Cuba and North Korea could have not been pressurised to work in line with American policy. Countries like Iraq and Afghanistan, Sudan could have not been punished by America, had the Cold War existed.
PART IIINew World Order
11. Need for New World Order. In the wake of the wholesale changes that the international political system was undergoing since the collapse of the Berlin Wall and the emerging shape of the global politico- strategic structure after Gulf War 1991, President Bush of the United States coined the phrase ‘’New World Order’’ to outline in principle, the guide lines for the US foreign policy in a changed world.
12. Salient of New World Order[4].
a. World Peace Top Priority. Peace in the world (peace strictly defined in the American politico-strategic lexicon) would be top priority on US agenda. President Bush’s words emphasized the need for’’ the UN to become a forum for achieving international consensus and maintain effective influence as an instrument for international peace keeping’’. This leads to the inference that the US sees UN to be a vehicle for promotion of her interests in the execution of the foreign policy objectives. The first instance which testified this was the Gulf War 1991, in which the US manipulated the apparatus of international organization for forging consensus to legitimize the use of force against Iraq and later confirmed by US in action to resolve other crises such as Bosnia. The very existence of veto system and concentration of effective decision –making power in Security Council, making General Assembly redundant though discriminatory went unnoticed as it suited the USA.
b. Non Proliferation of Arms. Non –proliferation of arms specially the chemical and nuclear weapons is the other most important objective of US foreign policy. To achieve this end, the US seems to use the international regimes institutionalized to secure limitation and reductions of these weapons. The destruction of Iraqi nuclear facilities, the continuous pressure on Pakistan and North Korea to sigh the NPT and imposition of economic sanctions on Pakistan and China for an alleged violation of the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) are ample justification to this trend. However, the discriminatory nature of these arrangements tends to reduce the effectiveness of the US policy.
c. Promotion of Economic Reforms. Promotion of economic reforms along liberal market pattern and the activation of regional trade and cooperation arrangements is also a goal of US policy. The US has not only been active in the establishment of WTO. It also wishes an active cooperation with the countries of the EC and ASEAN, though to the reservations on the part of other members of these arrangements. The international trade regime WTO seems to be a tool for regulating international trade in accordance with the objective of the USA. Other institutions like IMF and World Bank are suppose to serve the American interests in the area of third world development, North- South relations, debt crises etc.
d. Democracy and Human Rights. Democracy and human right are suppose to be the pass words for the promotion of stability in the world. These two issues have been made conditions with the provision of aid to incumbent recipients. As for human right issue is concerned, the US has so far achieved little success because of the very nature of the pressure applied. Most countries charged with as violators of human rights take it as intervention in the internal affairs of the state or take it simply, as propaganda cover to coerce the respective state to achieve some other objectives. Moreover the applications of the tool of human rights have been selective and discriminatory. As for as democracy is concerned, the US policy has limited scope of success as long as the countries urged towards democratic reform do not acquire the status of civil society.New World Order and the Third World
13. The salient of the New World order as it influences the Third Word affairs are as under[5]:-
a. USA a Hegemonic State. For the first time in the history of the world, the international political order has come under the hegemony of one state. Although the USA had an initial dominance over the UN system, the Cold War and nuclear deterrence established a kind of global balance of power which prevented any one state from establishing its hegemony over the entire international system. With the Soviet counter power disappearing from the international system, the new international political order had come under the virtually unchallenged hegemony of USA, the other military strong states being either in strategic alliance with the USA, or at any rate unwilling to challenge its global hegemony.
b. Using UNO as Instrument of Policy. The USA, which is perhaps the most aggressively nationalist state of the world today has been trying more or less openly to use the UN as an instrument for promotion of its perceived national interest across the globe. Politically, it has been trying to bend the UN to its will by the non-payment of its dues, by opposing the renewal of the tenure of a Secretary- General, who was showing a trace of the independent behaviour by persistently demanding ‘’ reform’’ of the UN system, and more importantly trying to induct two of its surrogates, Germany and Japan (India was also lobbying hard, but thankfully seems to have lost the bid) as permanent member of the Security Council.
c. Economic and Military Threat. Economically it has been using the World Bank and the IMF over which it has decisive controlling power for undermining the public sector and promoting a form of dependent capitalism throughout the Third World. Militarily, it has been trying to use the UN as a support base for its own foreign military interventions, as well as a series of discriminatory arms control regimes, including the Nuclear Non Proliferation (NPT) and Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), designed and sponsored by it to make its own military power and that if its strategic allies globally unchallengeable. This policy is certainly detrimental to the national and collective interests of the Third World states, whose sovereignty, security and independent development are constantly threatened by it. Pakistan has always objected to such discriminatory treaties.
Recommendations
14. Following recommendations are offered:-
a. Pakistan and other Third World states should not unresistingly and wilfully accept the new hegemonic international order in the name of ‘’liberalization’’ and ‘’globalization,’’. In the changed international political environments it is imperative for the militarily and economically weak states of the Third World to build up organized political resistance against the hegemonic structure of the new international political order.
b. Pakistan (being reverting to democratic form of government in October this year) along with other Third World countries should make all out efforts for democratization of the UN, which should include, to begin with, abolition of the veto system, transfer of effective decision -making power from the Security Council to the General Assembly.
c. Pakistan steadfast and defiant opposition to the NPT and the CTBT is a step in the right direction, indicating as it does a measure of resistance against wanton pressure from the hegemony of the New World Order. Pakistan should continue voicing against such discriminatory regimes.
d. China is the emerging global power. Pakistan should continue the policy of brotherly relations with her, however in the changed international environments, since Pakistan and USA has again come closer due to their common interests in fighting terrorism, Pakistan should exploit the situation to her advantage and draw maximum concessions.
e. Finally, we need to enhance regional organizations. With all their inefficiencies, in many cases these organizations have been rather effective at preventive diplomacy. One can point to the efforts of ASEAN states in Cambodia and the Arab League during the Gulf War, where they played constructive roles.
Conclusion
15. The bitter relations and confrontation between USSR and USA in the form of Cold War had erupted soon after the end of WW-II. Being the only socialist states in the world, Russia felt threatened by hostile capitalist world surrounding her. After having possessed a considerable influence in Eastern Europe, Russian leaders intended to increase their sphere to Western Europe and later to other parts of the world. USA and Western capitalist world felt endangered by the increased Communist influence. They joined together to contain Russia to her borders. Though the Cold War did not convert into a hot war, however a number of conflicts occurred across the globe, where both countries were indirectly involved against each other. The confrontation came to highest levels during the Cuban missile crises when both the states came closer to nuclear war. The break-up of Russia in 1991 formally ended the Cold War.
16. The period of Cold War was marked by a stability of the kind where interests of the weaker nations were looked after by their allied powers and no country could be exploited or forced to compulsory submission by any of the super power. After the end of Cold War, world has entered into an era totally dominated by single power, USA. American in strategic alliance with her regional hegemonic power is exploiting the weaker nations across the globe. Muslims countries are the worst hit. UNO has become ineffective and working according to the wishes of their masters. This exploitation is likely to continue at least for another two to three decades unless another power (most likely China), equal to the status of America, rises and balance of power is once again restored on the planet.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. World Politics trend and transformation 6th Edition by Charles W Kegley,JR
Engener Witt Kopf
2. International Affairs (revised edition) by Dr Safdar Mahmood
3. The end of Cold War its meaning and implications by Michael J Hogan
4. New World Order by Sardar Shoukat Ali
5. Regional Hegemons by David J Myers
6. Relevant materials available on following internet sites:-
a. http://learningcurve.pro.gov.uk/coldwar/default.htm
b. http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/coldwar.htm
c. http://histroy.acusd.edu/gen/20th/coldwar0.html
e. http://www.stmartin.edu/~dprice/cold.war.html
f. http://www.questia.com/index.jsp?CRID=COLD_WAR&OFFID=se1
[1] Charles W. Kegley, Jr, World Politics. (St. Martin Press, 1997), P. 81
[2] ibid
[3] ibid
[4] Dr Safdar Mahmood, International Affairs (Revised Edition). (A H Publishers, 1995), P478.
[5] Dr Safdar Mahmood, International Affairs( Revised Edition). (A H Publishers, 1995), P.483
Thekhans's Weblog 