Nonaligned Movement

Nonaligned Movement (NAM), loose association of countries that, during the

Cold War, had no formal commitment to either of the two power blocs in the
world, which were led by the United States and the Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics (USSR). The group was formed in September 1961 by a conference
of 25 heads of state in Belgrade, Yugoslavia. The conference was organized
by leaders of countries that had recently freed themselves from foreign
domination and rejected renewed ties to any big power. Prominent among
these leaders were Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru of India and Presidents
Sukarno of Indonesia, Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt, Kwame Nkrumah of
Ghana, Skou Tour of Guinea, and Josip Broz Tito of Yugoslavia.
The movement has grown to include more than 110 countries, mostly from
Africa, Asia, and Latin America. NAM conferences are held every three years.
The group has no formal administrative body; at each NAM conference the
office of chairperson rotates to the head of state of the host country.
Membership in NAM is distinct from neutrality in that it implies an active
participation in international affairs and judgment of issues on their merits
rather than from predetermined positions. Thus, a large majority of NAM
nations opposed the United States during the Vietnam War (1957-1975) and
the USSR after its 1979 invasion of Afghanistan. In practice, however, many
NAM nations leaned heavily toward one power bloc or the other.
The early members of NAM saw themselves as an important buffer between
rival military alliances, decreasing the possibility of a major confrontation.
Any pretension of being a force, however, was tempered by the diversity of
the nations governments, which ranged from leftist to ultraconservative and
from democratic to dictatorial, and by the economic and military weaknesses
that often made them dependent on foreign aid from the big power blocs.
The dissolution of the USSR in 1991 required NAM nations to redefine their
role in a world where intense ideological and military rivalry between two
superpowers was no longer a factor. Today the movement focuses on
promoting cooperation between developing countries and on advocating
solutions to global economic and political problems.
Warsaw Pact
Warsaw Pact (formally the Warsaw Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation, and

Mutual Assistance), military alliance of eight European Communist nations,

enacted to counter the rearmament of West Germany, officially called the
Federal Republic of Germany (FRG), and its admission to the North Atlantic
Treaty Organization (NATO). The treaty was signed in Warsaw, Poland, on
May 14, 1955, by Albania, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia (now the Czech Republic
and Slovakia), East Germany (now part of the united Federal Republic of
Germany), Hungary, Poland, Romania, and the Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics (USSR). The alliance was dominated by the USSR, which kept strict
control over the other countries in the pact.
In 1961 Albania broke off diplomatic relations with the USSR because of
ideological differences and in 1968 withdrew from the pact. From the mid1950s through the 1980s, two major bodies carried out the functions of the
Warsaw Pact: the Political Consultative Committee and the Unified Command
of Pact Armed Forces, both headquartered in Moscow.
Under the terms of the treaty, the Political Consultative Committee
coordinated all activities, except those purely military, and the Unified
Command of Pact Armed Forces had authority over the troops assigned to it
by member states. It was agreed that the supreme commander would be
from the USSR. The Warsaw Pact's only military action was directed against
Czechoslovakia, a member state. (In the autumn of 1956, the USSR took
unilateral military action against Hungary, another Warsaw Pact member
state, killing thousands of Hungarians and causing 200,000 to flee the
country.) In August 1968, after the Czech government enacted reforms
offensive to the USSR, forces of the USSR, Poland, Hungary, East Germany,
and Bulgaria invaded Czechoslovakia and forced a return to a Soviet-style
system. Romania opposed the invasion and did not participate, but remained
a member.
Although the Warsaw Pact was officially renewed in 1985 for another 20
years, the political transformation of Eastern Europe at the end of the 1980s
profoundly weakened the organization. The USSR began withdrawing its
troops from other Warsaw Pact countries, and East Germany pulled out to
join West Germany as the reunified nation of Germany in October 1990. All
joint military functions ceased at the end of March 1991, and in July leaders
of the remaining six member nations agreed to dissolve the alliance.
Persian Gulf War

I -INTRODUCTION
Persian Gulf War, conflict beginning in August 1990, when Iraqi forces
invaded and occupied Kuwait. The conflict culminated in fighting in January
and February 1991 between Iraq and an international coalition of forces led
by the United States. By the end of the war, the coalition had driven the
Iraqis from Kuwait.
II -CAUSES OF THE WAR
The Iraqi-Kuwaiti border had been the focus of tension in the past. Kuwait
was nominally part of the Ottoman Empire from the 18th century until 1899
when it asked for, and received, British protection in return for autonomy in
local affairs. In 1961 Britain granted Kuwait independence, and Iraq revived
an old claim that Kuwait had been governed as part of an Ottoman province
in southern Iraq and was therefore rightfully Iraqs. Iraqs claim had little
historical basis, however, and after intense global pressure Iraq recognized
Kuwait in 1963. Nonetheless, there were occasional clashes along the IraqiKuwaiti border, and relations between the two countries were sometimes
tense.
Relations between the two countries improved during the Iran-Iraq War
(1980-1988), when Kuwait assisted Iraq with loans and diplomatic backing.
After the war ended in 1988, the Iraqi government launched a costly program
of reconstruction. By 1990 Iraq had fallen $80 billion in debt and demanded
that Kuwait forgive its share of the debt and help with other payments. At the
same time, Iraq claimed that Kuwait was pumping oil from a field that
straddled the Iraqi-Kuwaiti border and was not sharing the revenue. Iraq also
accused Kuwait of producing more oil than allowed under quotas set by the
Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), thereby depressing
the price of oil, Iraqs main export.
Iraqs complaints against Kuwait grew increasingly harsh, but they were
mostly about money and did not suggest that Iraq was about to revive its
land claim to Kuwait. When Iraqi forces began to mobilize near the Kuwaiti
border in the summer of 1990, several Arab states tried to mediate the
dispute. Kuwait, seeking to avoid looking like a puppet of outside powers, did
not call on the United States or other non-Arab powers for support. For their
part, the U.S. and other Western governments generally expected that at
worst Iraq would seize some border area to intimidate Kuwait, so they
avoided being pulled into the dispute. Arab mediators convinced Iraq and

Kuwait to negotiate their differences in Jiddah, Saudi Arabia, on August 1,

1990, but that session resulted only in charges and countercharges. A
second session was scheduled to take place in Baghdd, the Iraqi capital, but
Iraq invaded Kuwait the next day, leading some observers to suspect that
Iraqi president Saddam Hussein had planned the invasion all along.
III -IRAQ INVADES
The Iraqi attack began shortly after midnight on August 2. About 150,000
Iraqi troops, many of them veterans of the Iran-Iraq War, easily overwhelmed
the unprepared and inexperienced Kuwaiti forces, which numbered about
20,000. By dawn Iraq had assumed control of Kuwait city, the capital, and
was soon in complete control of the country. Husseins political strategy was
less clear than his military strategy. The Iraqis initially posed as liberators,
hoping to appeal to Kuwaiti democrats who opposed the ruling Sabah
monarchy. When this claim attracted neither Kuwaiti nor international
support, it was dropped. In place of the Sabahs, most of whom fled during
the invasion, Iraq installed a puppet government.
The United Nations Security Council and the Arab League immediately
condemned the Iraqi invasion. Four days later, the Security Council imposed
an economic embargo on Iraq that prohibited nearly all trade with Iraq. Iraq
responded to the sanctions by annexing Kuwait on August 8, prompting the
exiled Sabah family to call for a stronger international response. In October,
Kuwaits rulers met with their democratic opponents in Jiddah, with the hope
of uniting during the occupation. The Sabah family promised the democrats
that if returned to Kuwait, they would restore constitutional rule and
parliament (both of which had been suspended in 1986).
In return, the democrats pledged to support the government in exile. The
unified leadership proved useful in winning international support for an
eviction of Iraq. Fewer than half of all Kuwaitis stayed in Kuwait through the
occupation; of those who stayed, some formed resistance organizations but
with little effect.
Any armed attempt to roll back the Iraqi invasion depended on Saudi Arabia,
which shares a border with both Iraq and Kuwait. Saudi Arabia had neither
the power nor the inclination to fight Iraq alone; if the Saudi government
invited foreign troops into the country to attack Iraq, however, it risked
appearing to be under their influence. Saudi rulers did eventually open the
country to foreign forces, in large part because they were alarmed by Iraqs

aggressive diplomacy and because U.S. intelligence reports claimed that

Iraqi forces were well positioned for a strike against Saudi Arabia. Other Arab
countries, such as Egypt, Syria, and the smaller states along the Persian Gulf,
feared that even if Iraqs conquests stopped at Kuwait, Iraq could still
intimidate the rest of the region. Western powers supported a rollback of
Iraqi forces because they were afraid Iraq could now dominate international
oil supplies. Finally, other members of the United Nations (UN) did not want
to allow one UN member state to eliminate another.
Beginning a week after the Iraqi takeover of Kuwait and continuing for
several months, a large international force gathered in Saudi Arabia.
The United States sent more than 400,000 troops, and more than 200,000
additional troops came from Saudi Arabia, the United Kingdom, France,
Kuwait, Egypt, Syria, Senegal, Niger, Morocco, Bangladesh, Pakistan, the
United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Oman, and Bahrain. Other countries
contributed ships, air forces, and medical units, including Canada, Italy,
Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Denmark, Greece, Norway, Portugal, Spain,
Czechoslovakia, New Zealand, the Netherlands, Poland, and South Korea. Still
other countries made other contributions: Turkey allowed air bases on its
territory to be used by coalition planes, and Japan and Germany gave
financial support. The initial goal of the force was to prevent further Iraqi
action, but most countries were aware the force might ultimately be used to
drive Iraq from Kuwait.
The Iraqis tried to deter and split the growing international coalition through
several means. They made it clear that their adversaries would pay heavily if
war broke out, and they hinted they would use chemical weapons and missile
attacks on cities, as they had against Iran during the Iran-Iraq War. Iraq also
detained citizens of coalition countries who had been in Kuwait at the time of
the invasion and said they would be held in militarily sensitive areasin
effect using them as human shields to deter coalition attacks. Iraq eventually
released the last of the foreigners in December 1990 under pressure from
several Arab nations. In an effort to weaken Arab support within the coalition,
Iraq tried to link its occupation of Kuwait to the larger Arab-Israeli conflict in
the region. The Iraqis argued that since the UN had not forced Israel to leave
Arab territories it occupied during and after the Six-Day War of 1967, it
should not force Iraq to leave Kuwait. The Iraqis further implied they might
leave Kuwait if Israel withdrew from the Occupied Territories. Several Arab
countries responded positively to Iraqs statements; however, most of these
were states such as Jordan and Yemen, which were not part of the coalition.

Only in Morocco and Syria did government support for coalition involvement
weaken as a result of Iraqs initiative.
The coalitions greatest military concern during the closing months of 1990
was that Iraqi forces would attack before coalition forces were fully in place,
but no such attack took place. The coalition was also troubled that Iraq might
partially withdraw from Kuwait, which could split the coalition between
nations eager to avoid fighting and nations wanting to push for full
withdrawal. The United States in particular feared that signs of progress
might lessen the resolve of some coalition partners and so discouraged
attempts to mediate the crisis. Iraqs uncompromising stand helped build
support among coalition members for the American hard line.
On November 29, with coalition forces massing in Saudi Arabia and Iraq
showing no signs of retreat, the UN Security Council passed a resolution to
allow member states to use all necessary means to force Iraq from Kuwait
if Iraq remained in the country after January 15, 1991. The Iraqis rejected the
ultimatum. Soon after the vote, the United States agreed to a direct meeting
between Secretary of State James Baker and Iraqs foreign minister. The two
sides met on January 9. Neither offered to compromise. The United States
underscored the ultimatum, and the Iraqis refused to comply with it, even
threatening to attack Israel. For the United States, the meeting was its way
of showing the conflict could not be resolved through negotiation.
A large minority of the U.S. population opposed military action. Opponents
were concerned that the armed forces would suffer large casualties and
argued that the only reason for the invasion was to guarantee a cheap
supply of oil. Many such opponents thought economic sanctions would
eventually force Iraq to leave Kuwait. President George Bush maintained that
larger political principles were involved and that economic sanctions would
not work. He also argued that the UN resolution gave him the authority to
use military force. Other Americans believed the president did not have the
constitutional authority to order an attack without a congressional
declaration of war. On January 12, 1991, the U.S. Congress narrowly passed a
resolution authorizing the president to use force, nullifying the domestic
debate.
IV -THE COALITION ATTACKS BY AIR
When the UN deadline of January 15 passed without an Iraqi withdrawal, a
vast majority of coalition members joined in the decision to attack Iraq. A few

members, such as Morocco, elected not to take part in the military strikes. In
the early morning of January 17, 1991, coalition forces began a massive air
attack on Iraqi targets.
The air assault had three goals: to attack Iraqi air defenses, to disrupt
command and control, and to weaken ground forces in and around Kuwait.
The coalition made swift progress against Iraqs air defenses, giving the
coalition almost uncontested control of the skies over Iraq and Kuwait. The
second task, disrupting command and control, was larger and more difficult.
It required attacks on the Iraqi electrical system, communications centers,
roads and bridges, and other military and government targets. These targets
were often located in civilian areas and were typically used by both civilians
and the military. Although the coalition air forces often used very precise
weapons, the attacks caused many civilian casualties and completely
disrupted Iraqi civilian life. The third task, weakening Iraqs ground forces,
was larger still. The coalition used less sophisticated weaponry to strike Iraqi
defensive positions in both Iraq and Kuwait, to destroy their equipment, and
to undermine morale. After five and a half weeks of intense bombing and
more than 100,000 flights by coalition planes, Iraqs forces were severely
damaged.
In an attempt to pry the coalition apart, Iraq fired Scud missiles at both Saudi
Arabia and Israel, which especially disrupted Israeli civilian life. Iraq could
thus portray its Arab adversaries as fighting on the side of Israel. The
strategy failed to split the coalition, in part because the Israeli government
did not retaliate. Iraq also issued thinly veiled threats that it would use
chemical and biological weapons. The United States hinted in return that
such an attack might provoke a massive response, possibly including the use
of nuclear weapons. Iraqi ground forces also initiated a limited amount of
ground fighting, occupying the Saudi border town of Khafji on January 30
before being driven back.
One month into the air war, the Iraqis began negotiating with the Union of
Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) over a plan to withdraw from Kuwait. Had
this initiative come before the start of the coalitions attack, it might have
split the coalition; now it simply seemed a sign that the war was weighing
heavily on Iraq. The war made diplomacy difficult for Iraq: officials had to
travel overland to Iran and then fly to Moscow to ferry messages back and
forth. Sensing victory, the coalition united behind a demand for Iraqs
unconditional withdrawal from Kuwait.

V -LAND WAR
On February 24 the coalition launched its long-anticipated land offensive.
The bulk of the attack was in southwestern Iraq, where coalition forces first
moved north, then turned east toward the Iraqi port of Al Barah. This
maneuver surrounded Kuwait, encircling the Iraqi forces there and in
southern Iraq, and allowed coalition forces (mainly Arab) to move up the
coast and take Kuwait city. Some Iraqi units resisted, but the coalition
offensive advanced more quickly than anticipated. Thousands of Iraqi troops
surrendered. Others deserted. Iraq then focused its efforts on withdrawing its
elite units and sabotaging Kuwaiti infrastructure and industry. Many oil wells
were set on fire, creating huge oil lakes, thick black smoke, and other
environmental damage. Two days after the ground war began, Iraq
announced it was leaving Kuwait.
On February 28, with the collapse of Iraqi resistance and the recapture of
Kuwaitthereby fulfilling the coalitions stated goalsthe coalition declared
a cease-fire. The land war had lasted precisely 100 hours. The cease-fire
came shortly before coalition forces would have surrounded Iraqi forces. On
March 2the UN Security Council issued a resolution laying down the
conditions for the cease-fire, which were accepted by Iraq in a meeting of
military commanders on March 3. More extensive aims, such as overthrowing
the Iraqi government or destroying Iraqi forces, did not have the support of
all coalition members. Most Arab members, for example, believed the war
was fought to restore one Arab country and not to destroy another. The
United States also worried that extending the goal would have involved them
in endless fighting.
The Iraqis achieved none of their initial goals. Rather than enhancing their
economic, military, and political position, they were economically
devastated, militarily defeated, and politically isolated. Yet because the
government and many of the military forces remained intact, the Iraqis could
claim mere survival as a victory. The surviving military forces were used a
short time later to suppress two postwar rebellions: one involving Shia
Muslims in southern Iraq and one involving Kurds in the north.
Almost all of the casualties occurred on the Iraqi side. While estimates during
the war had ranged from 10,000 to 100,000 Iraqis killed, Western military
experts now agree that Iraq sustained between 20,000 and 35,000
casualties. The coalition losses were extremely light by comparison: 240

were killed, 148 of whom were American. The number of wounded totaled
776, of whom 458 were American.
VI -CONSEQUENCES OF THE WAR
The end of the fighting left some key issues unresolved, including UN
sanctions against Iraq, which did not end with the war. On April 2, 1991, the
Security Council laid out strict demands for ending the sanctions: Iraq would
have to accept liability for damages, destroy its chemical and biological
weapons and ballistic missiles, forego any nuclear weapons programs, and
accept international inspections to ensure these conditions were met. If Iraq
complied with these and other resolutions, the UN would discuss removing
the sanctions. Iraq resisted, claiming that its withdrawal from Kuwait was
sufficient compliance.
Many Western observers believed the victory was hollow because Saddam
Hussein was still in power. At first, when Hussein was greatly weakened,
Western powers believed a rebellion might succeed in overthrowing him.
Meanwhile, potential rebels within Iraq believed they might receive
international help if they rebelled. But when the Shia population of southern
Iraq rebelled shortly after the cease-fire, they were greeted not with
international help but with Iraqi military forces returning from the southern
front. It quickly became clear that the rebels would receive no international
help, although several governments gave them verbal support. Under the
terms of the cease-fire, which established no-fly zones in the north and
south, Iraqis could not attack the Shias with airplanes, but could use
helicopters, which they did to great effect. Spontaneous and loosely
organized, the rebellion was crushed almost as quickly as it arose.
The defeat of the Shias made the debate over helping Iraqi rebels even more
urgent. Ultimately, however, most Western governments decided that if
Hussein collapsed, Iraq might disintegrate, ushering in a new round of
regional instability. A short while later, Kurds in the north of the country
rebelled, and they too received no help. The Kurds were able to withstand
Hussein longer than the Shias, in part because they had a history of
organized, armed resistance. In the end, though, the Kurds achieved only a
very modest success: a UN-guaranteed haven in the extreme north of the
country. No permanent solutionsuch as Kurdish self-rulewas negotiated.
Elsewhere the effects of the war were less severe. In Kuwait the prewar

regime was restored, and in 1992 the emir, Sheikh Jaber al-Ahmad al-Jaber
al-Sabah, honored his pledge in exile to reconvene the countrys parliament.
Palestinians in Kuwait fared poorly after the war, in large part because Yasir
Arafat of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and other prominent
Palestinians had endorsed Hussein and his anti-Israeli rhetoric. Blamed for
collaborating with the Iraqis, most of the Palestinian population (estimated at
400,000 before the war) was expelled from Kuwait or forbidden to return.
Following the war, thousands of American soldiers developed mild to
debilitating health problems, including abdominal pain, diarrhea, insomnia,
short-term memory loss, rashes, headaches, blurred vision, and aching
joints.
The symptoms became known collectively as Gulf War syndrome but their
cause was unknown. Speculation about the cause centered on exposure to
chemical and biological weapons; experimental drugs given to troops to
protect against chemical weapons; vaccinations against illness and disease;
insecticides sprayed over troop-populated areas; and smoke from burning oil
wells ignited by retreating Iraqis. The U.S. Department of Defense originally
stated it had no conclusive evidence that troops had been exposed to
chemical or biological weapons. However, in 1996 the department
acknowledged that more than 20,000 American troops may have been
exposed to sarin, a toxic nerve gas (see Chemical and Biological Warfare). In
1997 the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) suggested the deadly gas
may have spread farther than previously thought, affecting perhaps
hundreds of thousands of troops.
The UN continued to maintain most of the economic embargo on Iraq after
the war, and several coalition countries enforced other sanctions, such as the
no-fly zones. In 1995 the UN amended the sanctions to allow Iraq to sell
limited amounts of oil for food and medicine if it also designated some of the
revenue to pay for damages caused by the war; Iraq initially rejected this
plan but then accepted it in 1996.
North Atlantic Treaty Organization

I -INTRODUCTION
North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), regional defense alliance created
by the North Atlantic Treaty signed on April 4, 1949, at the beginning of the

Cold War. NATO has its headquarters in Brussels, Belgium. The original
purpose of NATO was to defend Western Europe against possible attack by
Communist nations, led by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR).
The original signatories were Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland,
Italy, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, the United Kingdom,
and the United States. Greece and Turkey were admitted to the alliance in
1952, West Germany in 1955, and Spain in 1982. In 1990 the newly unified
Germany replaced West Germany as a NATO member.
After the formal end of the Cold War in 1991, NATO reached out to former
members of the Warsaw Pact, the Communist military alliance created in
1955 by the USSR to counter NATO. In 1999 former Warsaw Pact members
Hungary, Poland, and the Czech Republic became members of NATO,
bringing the total membership to 19 nations. In 2002 Russia, once the
USSRs largest republic, became a limited partner in NATO as a member of
the NATO-Russia Council. The same year NATO invited the Baltic states of
Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, formerly part of the USSR, to join, along with
Slovenia, formerly part of Communist Yugoslavia, and Bulgaria, Romania, and
Slovakia, once part of Czechoslovakia. These countries were expected to
become members of NATO in 2004. Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, and Romania
were all former Warsaw Pact members.
NATO's purpose is to enhance the stability, well-being, and freedom of its
members through a system of collective security. Members of the alliance
agree to defend one another from attack by other nations. Over the years
the existence of NATO has led to closer ties among its members and to a
growing community of interests. The treaty itself has provided a model for
other collective security agreements.
II -BACKGROUND
In the years after World War II (1939-1945), many Western leaders believed
the policies of the USSR threatened international stability and peace. The
forcible installation of Communist governments throughout Eastern Europe,
territorial demands by the Soviets, and their support of guerrilla war in
Greece and regional separatism in Iran appeared to many as the first steps
of World War III. Such events prompted the signing of the Dunkirk Treaty in
1947 between Britain and France, which pledged a common defense against
aggression. Subsequent events, including the rejection by Eastern European
nations of the European Recovery Program (Marshall Plan) and the creation
of Cominform, a European Communist organization, in 1947, led to the

Brussels Treaty signed by most Western European countries in 1948. Among

the goals of that pact was the collective defense of its members. The Berlin
blockade that began in March 1948 led to negotiations between Western
Europe, Canada, and the United States that resulted in the North Atlantic
Treaty.
III -TREATY PROVISIONS
The North Atlantic Treaty consists of a preamble and 14 articles. The
preamble states the purpose of the treaty: to promote the common values of
its members and to unite their efforts for collective defense. Article 1 calls
for peaceful resolution of disputes. Article 2 pledges the parties to economic
and political cooperation. Article 3 calls for development of the capacity for
defense. Article 4 provides for joint consultations when a member is
threatened. Article 5 promises the use of the members' armed forces for
collective self-defense. Article 6 defines the areas covered by the treaty.
Article 7 affirms the precedence of members' obligations under the United
Nations Charter. Article 8 safeguards against conflict with any other treaties
of the signatories. Article 9 creates a council to oversee implementation of
the treaty. Article 10 describes admission procedures for other nations.
Article 11 states the ratification procedure. Article 12 allows for
reconsideration of the treaty. Article 13 outlines withdrawal procedures.
Article 14 calls for the deposition of the official copies of the treaty in the U.S.
Archives.
IV -STRUCTURE
The highest authority within NATO is the North Atlantic Council, composed of
permanent delegates from all members, headed by a secretary general. It is
responsible for general policy, budgetary outlines, and administrative
actions, and is the decision-making body of NATO. The Secretariat, various
temporary committees, and the Military Committee are among the
committees that report to the North Atlantic Council. The secretary general
runs the Secretariat, which handles all the nonmilitary functions of the
alliance. The temporary committees deal with specific assignments of the
council. The Military Committee consists of the chiefs of staff of the various
armed forces; it meets twice a year. Between such meetings the Military
Committee, in permanent session with representatives of the members,
defines military policies. Below the Military Committee are the various
geographical commands: Allied Command Europe, Allied Command Atlantic,
and the Canada-U.S. Regional Planning Group. These commands are in
charge of deploying armed forces in their areas.

V -HISTORY
A -Early Years
Until 1950 NATO consisted primarily of a pledge by the United States to
defend other members of the alliance under the terms of Article 5 of the
treaty. However, there was no effective military or administrative structure to
implement this pledge. The outbreak of the Korean War in June 1950
convinced the allies that the Soviets might act against a divided Germany.
The result was not only the creation of a military command system, but also
the expansion of the organization. In 1952 Greece and Turkey joined the
alliance, and in 1955 West Germany was accepted under a complicated
arrangement whereby Germany would not be allowed to manufacture
nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons. In its first decade NATO was mainly
a military organization dependent on U.S. power for security and for the
revival of Europe's economy and national governments.
B -The Cold War Era
NATOs importance grew with the worsening of relations between the Soviet
Union and Western powers. As the Soviet Union achieved parity in nuclear
weaponry with Western powers, some European nations feared that the
United States would not honor its pledge to defend other members of the
alliance. The 1960s were characterized by two consequent developments in
NATO: the withdrawal of France, under President Charles de Gaulle, from the
organization but not from the alliance in 1966; and the rising influence of the
smaller nations, which sought to use NATO as an instrument of dtente as
well as defense.
The crisis in Czechoslovakia in 1968 was a turning point for NATO; thereafter
it was viewed as a source of security for Europe. America's involvement in
the Vietnam War (1957-1975) further diminished U.S. authority and
contributed to dissatisfaction within NATO. Although the 1970s began with
some agreements as a result of the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT I),
the decade ended in disillusionment as the Soviets rapidly built up their
military arsenal. NATO resolved this problem with the dual-track program of
1979, in which new defense efforts were accompanied by new efforts at
dtente. The 1980s opened with a deepening crisis between the East and
West. In 1983 the USSR failed to prevent the deployment of intermediaterange ballistic missiles, designed to cope with Soviet weapons targeted on
European cities. The signing of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty

(INF) in 1987 presaged the breakdown of the Warsaw Pact (see Arms
Control). The decade ended with the apparent success of NATO in
surmounting the challenge of the Communist bloc.
C -End of the Cold War
In the late 1980s Communist governments began to crumble throughout
Eastern Europe. West Germany absorbed East Germany to form the Federal
Republic of Germany in 1990, and the Warsaw Pact dissolved in early 1991.
The Soviet Union broke apart later that year, drastically reducing the military
threat to NATO. Nevertheless, many Western observers saw NATO in the
post-Cold War era as an umbrella of security in a Europe buffeted by the
nationalist passions unleashed in Eastern Europe and the former USSR.
Following the dissolution of the USSR, NATO sought to strengthen relations
with the newly independent nations that had formerly made up the USSR and
with other Central Eastern European countries that belonged to the Warsaw
Pact. The North Atlantic Cooperation Council, established in November 1991,
provides a forum for consultations between NATO members, Eastern
European nations, and the former Soviet republics. In 1993 NATO members
endorsed a proposal to offer former Warsaw Pact members limited
associations with NATO. Under the plan, known as Partnership for Peace
(PFP), nonmembers could be invited to participate in information sharing,
joint exercises, and peacekeeping operations. The Partnership for Peace was
a step toward providing security and cooperation throughout all of Europe.
Many former Soviet satellites were eager to join. Although Russia opposed
their membership and threatened to abstain from the Partnership for Peace,
it did join eventually. Members of PFP may eventually attain full membership
in NATO if other membership requirements, such as a trained army to join
NATO troops, are met.
In 1995, after a 30-year boycott, France returned to NATO, accepting a seat
on the military committee after U.S. president Bill Clinton accelerated plans
for NATO's expansion. Also at this time, the United States and NATO began
serious efforts to bring to an end the continuing war in Bosnia and
Herzegovina, which threatened European stability. Leaders of the NATO
alliance authorized a campaign of air strikes against Bosnian Serb positions
to force the Bosnian Serbs to negotiate a peace settlement. After weeks of
air attacks, the Bosnian Serb leaders agreed to be represented at a peace
conference near Dayton, Ohio, and in December 1995 the warring parties

signed a peace accord that ended the war (see Dayton Peace Accord).
The following month, as part of the Dayton agreement, NATO deployed a
multinational force of tens of thousands of troops, known as the
Implementation Force (IFOR), to monitor and enforce the cease-fire in Bosnia.
A year later NATO replaced this force with a smaller Stabilization Force
(SFOR). Its mission was extended indefinitely to ensure stability in the region.
D -Recent Developments
In March 1999 three former members of the Warsaw PactHungary, Poland,
and the Czech Republicjoined the alliance. The same month, NATO forces
began a campaign of air strikes against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
(FRY, now the republic of Serbia and Montenegro). The NATO strikes were
launched after Yugoslav president Slobodan Miloevi refused to accept an
international peace plan that would have granted a period of autonomy for
the Yugoslav province of Kosovo. The province was populated mainly by
ethnic Albanians, many of whom were fighting for autonomy or
independence for Kosovo. Western leaders hoped the NATO attacks would
bring Miloevi back to the bargaining table. They also hoped to end the
ongoing repression of the minority ethnic Albanians by the FRY's ethnic
Serbian majority.
The first NATO attacks were limited to a few dozen military targets, but the
alliance dramatically expanded the air campaign against the FRY after
reports of widespread atrocities by Serb forces against Kosovo's ethnic
Albanian civilian population. By April 1999 more than 1,000 warplanes under
NATO command were involved in strikes throughout the republic. It was the
largest military operation ever undertaken by NATO.
Instead of persuading Yugoslav leaders to accept a negotiated peace, the air
strikes appeared to deepen Serbian resolve to oppose NATO demands and
intensified the violence directed at ethnic Albanians. Serbian army and police
forces destroyed villages, killed civilians in Kosovo, and forced hundreds of
thousands of ethnic Albanians to flee the province. The flight of refugees was
the largest mass migration in Europe since World War II. Critics charged that
NATO failed to anticipate the refugee crisis.
International opposition to the NATO assault came swiftly. Russia, China, and
India accused NATO of violating international law by not seeking the approval
of the United Nations (UN) before striking Yugoslavia. Russia broke off all

diplomatic ties with NATO and introduced a resolution to the UN Security

Council that called for an end to the bombardment. The resolution was
rejected decisively. (Russia and NATO did not formally resume contact until
early 2000.)
NATO was further criticized after warplanes under its command bombed
civilian structures and convoys of ethnic Albanians trying to flee Kosovo.
NATO leadership apologized for the attacks, which it maintained were
accidental, but insisted that Miloevi was responsible for the continuing
conflict. After NATO warplanes bombed China's embassy in Belgrade by
mistake, Chinese officials called on NATO to end the air campaign.
In June 1999, after 11 weeks of NATO bombing had incapacitated or
destroyed much of Yugoslavia's infrastructure, the FRY consented to most of
the alliance's demands. FRY leaders signed an agreement that ended the
bombing and placed Kosovo under international control. As part of the
agreement, a NATO-led multinational force of thousands of troops occupied
Kosovo to help ensure the safe return of ethnic Albanian refugees. The
Kosovo peacekeeping force, known as KFOR, saw its mission extended
indefinitely to protect public safety, demilitarize Kosovo, and provide
humanitarian assistance. The agreement also mandated the disarmament of
the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), a guerrilla army organized prior to the
NATO campaign that had attempted to drive Serb troops and police forces
from the province.
The campaign against the FRY revealed the difficulty of sustaining military
action that requires the consensus of the entire 19-country NATO alliance,
and it exposed differences of opinion in the expanded organization. During
the conflict, British leaders advocated attacking the FRY with ground forces,
while other members of the alliance publicly opposed plans to invade
Kosovo. Despite these disagreements, the core members of the alliance
continued to support the air campaign.
NATO's involvement in Kosovo also indicated the expanded role of the
alliance in European and world affairs. Prior to the hostilities, military forces
under NATO command served primarily to deter would-be attackers. During
the Kosovo operation, NATO attempted to use its military might to advance
humanitarian goals, to force compliance with the alliance's wishes, and to
prevent the possibility of a wider conflict in Europe. NATO intervened in
Kosovo despite the fact that none of the alliance's members were directly

attacked by the FRY.

In 2002 Russia became a limited partner in NATO as part of the NATO-Russia
Council. The creation of the council gave Russia the opportunity to take part
in discussions about NATO decisions but without having a binding vote. Most
key decisions, such as NATOs expansion, remained exclusive to the 19member council of ministers.
Also in 2002, NATO invited seven other countriesBulgaria, Estonia, Latvia,
Lithuania, Romania, Slovenia, and Slovakiato become members of the
organization. All seven were expected to be admitted in 2004, bringing
NATOs total membership to 26.
Vietnam War

I -INTRODUCTION
Vietnam War, also known as the Second Indochina War, military struggle
fought in Vietnam from 1959 to 1975, involving the North Vietnamese and
the National Liberation Front (NLF) in conflict with United States forces and
the South Vietnamese army. From 1946 until 1954, the Vietnamese had
struggled for their independence from France during the First Indochina War.
At the end of this war, the country was temporarily divided into North and
South Vietnam. North Vietnam came under the control of Vietnamese
Communists who had opposed France and who aimed for a unified Vietnam
under Communist rule. The South was controlled by non-Communist
Vietnamese.
The United States became involved in Vietnam because American
policymakers believed that if the entire country fell under a Communist
government, Communism would spread throughout Southeast Asia. This
belief was known as the domino theory. The U.S. government, therefore,
helped to create the anti-Communist South Vietnamese government. This
governments repressive policies led to rebellion in the South, and in 1960
the NLF was formed with the aim of overthrowing the government of South
Vietnam and reunifying the country.
In 1965 the United States sent in troops to prevent the South Vietnamese
government from collapsing. Ultimately, however, the United States failed to
achieve its goal, and in 1975 Vietnam was reunified under Communist

control; in 1976 it officially became the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. During

the conflict, approximately 3.2 million Vietnamese were killed, in addition to
another 1.5 million to 2 million Lao and Cambodians who were drawn into the
war. Nearly 58,000 Americans lost their lives.
II -BACKGROUND
From the 1880s until World War II (1939-1945), France governed Vietnam as
part of French Indochina, which also included Cambodia and Laos. Vietnam
was under the nominal control of an emperor, Bao Dai. In 1940 Japanese
troops invaded and occupied French Indochina. In May 1941 Vietnamese
nationalists established the League for the Independence of Vietnam, or Viet
Minh, seeing the turmoil of World War II as an opportunity to overthrow
French colonial rule. The Viet Minh, a front organization of the Indochinese
Communist Party, sought popular support for national independence, as well
as social and political reform.
The United States demanded that Japan leave Indochina, warning of military
action. The Viet Minh began guerrilla warfare against Japan and entered an
effective alliance with the United States. Viet Minh troops rescued downed
U.S. pilots, located Japanese prison camps, helped U.S. prisoners to escape,
and provided valuable intelligence to the Office of Strategic Services (OSS),
the forerunner of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Ho Chi Minh, the
principal leader of the Viet Minh, was even made a special OSS agent.
When the Japanese formally surrendered to the Allies on September 2, 1945,
Ho used the occasion to declare the independence of Vietnam, which he
called the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (DRV). Emperor Bao Dai had
abdicated the throne a week earlier. The French, however, refused to
acknowledge Vietnams independence, and later that year drove the Viet
Minh into the north of the country. There they regrouped as the Lien Viet
Front, which sought a broader base of support, including moderates; it was
replaced in 1955 by the Fatherland Front, which served as the Communistfront organization of the DRV. (The NLF later served as the southern front.)
However, the term Viet Minh continued to be commonly used for supporters
of the movement for a unified Vietnam. Also in 1951 some Vietnamese
nationalists created the Lao Dong (Workers Party) as the successor to the
Indochinese Communist Party, which had been operating clandestinely since
1945 in the war against the French. The Lao Dong was conceived as a
nationwide, united party, and it was formally based in the DRV capital of

Hanoi. By 1953 most Viet Minh were members of the Lao Dong.
Immediately after Ho declared the formation of the DRV, he wrote eight
letters to U.S. president Harry Truman, imploring him to recognize Vietnams
independence. Many OSS agents informed the U.S. administration that
despite being a Communist, Ho Chi Minh was not a puppet of the
Communist-led Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) and that he could
potentially become a valued ally in Asia. Tensions between the United States
and the USSR had mounted after World War II, resulting in the Cold War.
The foreign policy of the United States during the Cold War was driven by a
fear of the spread of Communism. After World War II Communist
governments came to power in Eastern European nations that had fallen
under the domination of the USSR, and in 1949 Communists took control of
China. United States policymakers felt they could not afford to lose Southeast
Asia as well to Communist rule. The United States therefore condemned Ho
Chi Minh as an agent of international Communism and offered to assist the
French in reestablishing a colonial regime in Vietnam.
In 1946 United States warships ferried elite French troops to Vietnam where
they quickly regained control of the major cities, including Hanoi, Haiphong,
Da Nang, Hue, and Saigon (now Ho Chi Minh City), while the Viet Minh
controlled the countryside. The Viet Minh had only 2,000 troops at the time
Vietnams independence was declared, but recruiting increased after the
arrival of French troops. By the late 1940s, the Viet Minh had hundreds of
thousands of soldiers and were fighting the French to a draw. In 1949 the
French set up a government to rival Ho Chi Minhs, installing Bao Dai as head
of state.
In May 1954 the Viet Minh mounted a massive assault on the French garrison
at Dien Bien Phu, in northwestern Vietnam near the border with Laos. The
Battle of Dien Bien Phu resulted in perhaps the most humiliating defeat in
French military history. Already tired of the war, the French public forced their
government to reach a peace agreement at the Geneva Conference.
France asked the other world powers to help draw up a plan for French
withdrawal from the region and for the future of Vietnam. Meeting in Geneva,
Switzerland, from May 8 to July 21, 1954, diplomats from France, Great
Britain, the USSR, the Peoples Republic of China, and the United States, as
well as representatives from Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia, attended
delegations to draft a set of agreements called the Geneva Accords.

These agreements provided for a cease-fire throughout Vietnam and a

temporary partition of the country at the 17th parallel. French troops were to
withdraw to the south of the dividing line until they could be safely removed
from the country, while Viet Minh forces were to retreat to the north. Ho Chi
Minh maintained control of North Vietnam, or the DRV, while Emperor Bao
Dai remained head of South Vietnam. Elections were to be held in July 1956
throughout the North and South under the supervision of the International
Control Commission, comprised of representatives from Canada, Poland, and
India. Following these elections, Vietnam was to be reunited under the
government chosen by popular vote. The Viet Minh reluctantly agreed to the
partitioning of Vietnam in the expectation that the elections would reunify
the country under Communist rule.
The United States did not want to allow the possibility of Communist control
over Vietnam. In June 1954, during the Geneva Conference, the United
States pressured Bao Dai to appoint Ngo Dinh Diem prime minister of the
government in South Vietnam. The United States chose Diem for his
nationalist and anti-Communist credentials. With U.S. support, Diem refused
to sign the Geneva Accords. The United States, which acted as an observer
during the delegations, also did not become a signatory. Immediately after
the Geneva Conference, the U.S. government moved to establish the
Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO), a regional alliance that
extended protection to South Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos in cases of
Communist subversion or insurrection. SEATO, which came into force in
1955, became the mechanism by which Washington justified its support for
South Vietnam; this support eventually became direct involvement of U.S.
troops.
Meanwhile, Diem announced he had no intention of participating in the
planned national elections, which Ho Chi Minh and the Lao Dong were
favored to win. Instead, Diem held elections only in South Vietnam, in
October 1955.
He won the elections with 98.2 percent of the vote, but many historians
believe these elections were rigged, since about 150,000 more people voted
in Saigon than were registered. Diem then deposed Bao Dai, who had been
the only other candidate, and declared South Vietnam to be an independent
nation called the Republic of Vietnam (RVN), with himself as president and
Saigon as its capital. Vietnamese Communists and many non-Communist
Vietnamese nationalists saw the creation of the RVN as an effort by the

United States to interfere with the independence promised at Geneva.

III -THE BEGINNING OF THE WAR: 1959-1965
Diem represented the interests of the urban, Catholic minority in South
Vietnam. Although Diem also found some support in the countryside among
non-Communists, he did not enjoy a broad base of support. The repressive
measures of the Diem government, designed to persecute Viet Minh activists
and gain control of the countryside, eventually led to increasingly organized
opposition within South Vietnam. The United States initially backed Diems
government with military advisers and financial assistance to keep it from
collapsing. The political situation in South Vietnam became even more
unstable after Diem was killed in a military coup in 1963, leading to more
direct involvement by the United States. The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution of
1964 gave President Lyndon B. Johnson permission to launch a full-scale
military intervention in Vietnam. The first American combat troops arrived in
Vietnam in March 1965.
A -Rebellion in South Vietnam
When Vietnam was divided in 1954, many Viet Minh who had been born in
the southern part of the country returned to their native villages to await the
1956 elections and the reunification of their nation. When the elections did
not take place as planned, these Viet Minh immediately formed the core of
opposition to Diems government and sought its overthrow. They were
greatly aided in their efforts to organize resistance in the countryside by
Diems own policies, which alienated many peasants.
Beginning in 1955, the United States created the Army of the Republic of
Vietnam (ARVN) in South Vietnam. Using these troops, Diem took land away
from peasants and returned it to former landlords, reversing the land
redistribution program implemented by the Viet Minh. He also forcibly moved
many villagers from their ancestral lands to controlled settlements in an
attempt to prevent Communist activity, and he drafted their sons into the
ARVN.
Diem sought to undermine the Viet Minh, whom he derogatorily referred to
as Viet Cong (the Vietnamese equivalent of calling them Commies), yet
their influence continued to grow. Most southern Viet Minh were committed
to the Lao Dongs program of national liberation, reunification of Vietnam,
and reconstruction of society along socialist principles. By the late 1950s
they were anxious to begin full-scale armed struggle against Diem but were

held in check by the northern branch of the party, which feared that this
would invite the entry of U.S. armed forces. In 1960, however, widespread
opposition to Diem in rural areas convinced the party leadership to officially
sanction the formation of the National Front for the Liberation of South
Vietnam (commonly known as the National Liberation Front, or NLF).
The NLF was a classical Communist-front organization; although Communists
dominated the NLF leadership, the organization also embraced nonCommunists who opposed the South Vietnamese government. The aim of the
NLF was to overthrow the Diem government and reunify Vietnam. Toward this
end, the NLF began to train and equip a guerrilla force that was formally
organized in 1961 as the Peoples Liberation Armed Forces (PLAF).
Diems support was concentrated mainly in the cities. Although he had been
a nationalist opposed to French rule, he welcomed into his government those
Vietnamese who had collaborated with the French, and many of these
became ARVN officers. Catholics were a minority throughout Vietnam,
amounting to no more than 10 percent of the population, but they
predominated in government positions because Diem himself was Catholic.
Between 1954 and 1955, operatives paid by the CIA spread rumors in
northern Vietnam that Communists were going to launch a persecution of
Catholics, which caused nearly 1 million Catholics to flee to the south. Their
resettlement uprooted Buddhists who already deeply resented Diems rule
because of his severe discrimination against them.
In May 1963 Buddhists began a series of demonstrations against Diem, and
the demonstrators were fired on by police. At least 7 Buddhist monks set
themselves on fire to protest the repression. Diem dismissed these suicides
as publicity stunts and promptly arrested 1,400 monks. He then arrested
thousands of high school and grade school students who were involved in
protests against the government. After this, Diem was viewed as an
embarrassment both by the United States and by many of his own generals.
The Saigon governments war against the NLF was also going badly. In
January 1963 an ARVN force of 2,000 encountered a group of 350 NLF
soldiers at Ap Bac, a village south of Saigon in the Mekong River Delta. The
ARVN troops were equipped with jet fighters, helicopters, and armored
personnel carriers, while the NLF forces had only small arms. Nonetheless,
61 ARVN soldiers were killed, as were 3 U.S. military advisers. By contrast,
the NLF forces lost only 12 men. Some U.S. military advisers began to report

that Saigon was losing the war, but the official military and embassy press
officers reported Ap Bac as a significant ARVN victory. Despite this official
account, a handful of U.S. journalists began to report pessimistically about
the future of U.S. involvement in South Vietnam, which led to increasing
public concern.
President John F. Kennedy still believed that the ARVN could become
effective. Some of his advisers advocated the commitment of U.S. combat
forces, but Kennedy decided to try to increase support for the ARVN among
the people of Vietnam through counterinsurgency. United States Special
Forces (Green Berets) would work with ARVN troops directly in the villages in
an effort to match NLF political organizing and to win over the South
Vietnamese people.
To support the U.S. effort, the Diem government developed a strategic
hamlet program that was essentially an extension of Diems earlier
relocation practices. Aimed at cutting the links between villagers and the
NLF, the program removed peasants from their traditional villages, often at
gunpoint, and resettled them in new hamlets fortified to keep the NLF out.
Administration was left up to Diems brother Nhu, a corrupt official who
charged villagers for building materials that had been donated by the United
States. In many cases peasants were forbidden to leave the hamlets, but
many of the young men quickly left anyway and joined the NLF. Young men
who were drafted into the ARVN often also worked secretly for the NLF. The
Kennedy administration concluded that Diems policies were alienating the
peasantry and contributing significantly to NLF recruitment.
The number of U.S. advisers assigned to the ARVN rose steadily. In January
1961, when Kennedy took office, there were 800 U.S. advisers in Vietnam; by
November 1963 there were 16,700. American airpower was assigned to
support ARVN operations; this included the aerial spraying of herbicides such
as Agent Orange, which was intended to deprive the NLF of food and jungle
cover. Despite these measures, the ARVN continued to lose ground.
As the military situation deteriorated in South Vietnam, the United States
sought to blame it on Diems incompetence and hoped that changes in his
administration would improve the situation. Nhus corruption became a
principal focus; Diem was urged to remove his brother, but he refused. Many
in Diems military were especially dissatisfied with Diems government and
the ARVNs inability to rout the NLF, and they hoped for increased U.S. aid.

General Duong Van Minh informed the CIA and U.S. ambassador Henry Cabot
Lodge of a plot to conduct a coup dtat against Diem. Although the United
States wanted to remove Diem from power, it did not give formal support for
a coup. When the military generals finally staged the coup on November 1,
1963, it resulted in the murder of both Diem and Nhu. In the political
confusion that followed, the security situation in South Vietnam continued to
deteriorate. Meanwhile, the CIA was forced to admit that the strength of the
NLF was continuing to grow.
************************************************** *****************
B -The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution
Succeeding to the presidency after Kennedys assassination on November
22, 1963, Lyndon B. Johnson felt he had to take a forceful stance on Vietnam
so that other Communist countries would not think that the United States
lacked resolve. Kennedy had begun to consider the possibility of withdrawal
from Vietnam and had even ordered the removal of 1,000 advisers shortly
before he was assassinated, but Johnson increased the number of U.S.
advisers to 27,000 by mid-1964. Even though intelligence reports clearly
stated that most of the support for the NLF came from the south, Johnson,
like his predecessors, continued to insist that North Vietnam was
orchestrating the southern rebellion. He was determined that he would not
be held responsible for allowing Vietnam to fall to the Communists.
Johnson believed that the key to success in the war in South Vietnam was to
frighten North Vietnams leaders with the possibility of full-scale U.S. military
intervention. In January 1964 he approved top-secret, covert attacks against
North Vietnamese territory, including commando raids against bridges,
railways, and coastal installations. Johnson also ordered the U.S. Navy to
conduct surveillance missions along the North Vietnamese coast. He
increased the secret bombing of territory in Laos along the Ho Chi Minh Trail,
a growing network of paths and roads used by the NLF and the North
Vietnamese to transport supplies and troops into South Vietnam. Hanoi
concluded that the United States was preparing to occupy South Vietnam
and indicated that it, too, was preparing for full-scale war.
On August 2, 1964, North Vietnamese coastal gunboats fired on the
destroyer USS Maddox, which had penetrated North Vietnams territorial
boundaries in the Gulf of Tonkin. Johnson ordered more ships to the area, and
on August 4 both the Maddox and the USS Turner Joy reported that North

Vietnamese patrol boats had fired on them. Johnson then ordered the first air
strikes against North Vietnamese territory and went on television to seek
approval from the U.S. public. (Subsequent congressional investigations
would conclude that the August 4 attack almost certainly had never
occurred.) The U.S. Congress overwhelmingly passed the Gulf of Tonkin
Resolution, which effectively handed over war-making powers to Johnson
until such time as "peace and security" had returned to Vietnam.
After the Gulf of Tonkin incident Johnson declared, We seek no wider war.
United States bombing was significantly reduced. Meanwhile, North Vietnam
began to dispatch well-trained units of its Peoples Army of Vietnam (PAVN)
into the south. The NLF guerrillas coordinated their attacks with PAVN forces.
On February 7, 1965, the NLF launched surprise attacks on the U.S.
helicopter base at Pleiku, killing 8 Americans, wounding 126, and destroying
10aircraft; on February 10 they struck again at Qui Nhon, killing 23 U.S.
servicemen and wounding 21 at the U.S. enlisted personnels quarters there.
The attacks coincided with two high-level diplomatic visits: one in Hanoi by
Soviet premier Aleksey Kosygin, and the other in Saigon by U.S. national
security adviser McGeorge Bundy.
Within hours of the attacks, Johnson approved reprisal air strikes against
North Vietnam. In Hanoi, Kosygin abandoned his initiative to persuade North
Vietnamese leaders to consider negotiations with the United States, and
instead promised them unconditional military aid. Johnsons advisers, chiefly
Bundy and Defense Secretary Robert McNamara, believed it was imperative
to conduct an intensive air campaign against the North, in part to
demonstrate it would pay a price for supporting the NLF. Johnson authorized
a sustained bombing campaign to begin on March 2. Johnsons senior
planners reached the consensus that U.S. combat forces would be required
to protect U.S. air bases, as the ARVN was considered to be too weak for the
task. On March 8 the first of these forces, 3,500 U.S. Marines, landed at Da
Nang. By the end of April, 56,000 other combat troops had joined them; by
June the number had risen to 74,000.
IV -ESCALATED UNITED STATES INVOLVEMENT: 1965-1969
When some of the soldiers of the U.S. 9th Marine Regiment landed in Da
Nang in March 1965, their orders were to protect the U.S. air base, but the
mission was quickly escalated to include search-and-destroy patrols of the
area around the base. This corresponded in miniature to the larger strategy
of General William Westmoreland. Westmoreland, who took over the Military

Assistance Command in Vietnam (MACV) in 1964, advocated establishing a

large American force and then unleashing it in big sweeps. His strategy was
that of attritioneliminating or wearing down the enemy by inflicting the
highest death toll possible. There were 80,000 U.S. troops in Vietnam by the
end of 1965; by 1969 a peak of about 543,000 troops would be reached.
Having easily pushed aside the ARVN, both the North Vietnamese and the
NLF had anticipated the U.S. escalation. With full-scale movement of U.S.
troops onto South Vietnamese territory, the Communists claimed that the
Saigon regime had become a puppet, not unlike the colonial collaborators
with the French. Both the North Vietnamese and NLF appealed to the
nationalism of the Vietnamese to rise up and drive this new foreign army
from their land.
A -DRV and NLF Strategy
The strategy developed against the United States was the result of intense
debate between the northern and southern members of the Lao Dongs
Political Bureau in Hanoi. Truong Chinh, a northerner and the leading
Communist ideologist in Hanoi, argued that the southern Vietnamese must
liberate themselves, in accordance with a peoples war strategy that
would, if successful, result in a reunified Vietnam; Le Duan, a southerner who
became secretary general of the Lao Dong, advocated the Norths full
support of the armed struggle in the South, on the premise that Vietnam was
one nation and therefore dependent on all Vietnamese for its independence
and reunification.
Ho Chi Minh, revered widely throughout Vietnam as the father of
independence, and other party leaders ultimately sided with Duans point of
view. Duans triumph represented a major turning point within the party in
which southerners came to dictate party policy in Hanoi. The Central
Committee Directorate for the South (also known as the Central Office for
South Vietnam, or COSVN), formed in 1961 as the leadership group of the
newly merged southern and central branches of the Lao Dong, was able to
coordinate a unified strategy. COSVN was under the direction of Nguyen Chi
Thanh, a southerner and a PAVN general, for most of the war.
After the United States initiated large-scale bombing against the DRV in
1964, in the wake of the Gulf of Tonkin incident, Hanoi dispatched the first
unit of northern-born regular soldiers to the south. Previously, southern-born
Viet Minh, known as regroupees, had returned to their native regions and
joined NLF guerrilla units. Now PAVN regulars, commanded by generals who

usually had been born in the south, began to set up bases in the Central
Highlands of South Vietnam in order to gain strategic position.
Unable to cross the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) at the 17th parallel separating
North from South Vietnam, PAVN regulars moved into South Vietnam along
the Ho Chi Minh Trail through Laos and Cambodia. In use since 1957, the trail
was originally a series of footpaths; by the late 1960s it would become a
network of paved highways that enabled the motor transport of people and
equipment. The NLF guerrillas and North Vietnamese troops were poorly
armed compared to the Americans, so once they were in South Vietnam they
avoided open combat. Instead they developed hit-and-run tactics designed
to cause steady casualties among the U.S. troops and to wear down popular
support for the war in the United States.
B -United States Strategy
In June 1964 retired general Maxwell Taylor replaced Henry Cabot Lodge as
ambassador to South Vietnam. A former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
the military advisory group to the president, Taylor at first opposed the
introduction of American combat troops, believing that this would make the
ARVN quit fighting altogether. By 1965 he agreed to the request of General
Westmoreland for combat forces. Taylor initially advocated an enclave
strategy, where U.S. forces would seek to preserve areas already considered
to be under Saigons control. This quickly proved impossible, since NLF
strength was considerable virtually everywhere in South Vietnam.
In October 1965 the newly arrived 1st Cavalry Division of the U.S. Army
fought one of the largest battles of the Vietnam War in the Ia Drang Valley,
inflicting a serious defeat on North Vietnamese forces. The North Vietnamese
and NLF forces changed their tactics as a result of the battle. From then on
both would fight at times of their choosing, hitting rapidly, with surprise if
possible, and then withdrawing just as quickly to avoid the impact of
American firepower. The success of the American campaign in the Ia Drang
Valley convinced Westmoreland that his strategy of attrition was the key to
U.S. victory. He ordered the largest search-and-destroy operations of the war
in the Iron Triangle, the Communist stronghold in the rural provinces near
Saigon. This operation was intended to find and destroy North Vietnam and
NLF military headquarters, but the campaign failed to wipe out Communist
forces from the area.
By 1967 the ground war had reached a stalemate, which led Johnson and

McNamara to increase the ferocity of the air war. The Joint Chiefs of Staff had
been pressing for this for some time, but there was already some indication
that intensified bombing would not produce the desired results. In 1966 the
bombing of North Vietnams oil facilities had destroyed 70 percent of their
fuel reserves, but the DRVs ability to wage the war had not been affected.
Planners wished to avoid populated areas, but when 150,000 sorties per year
were being flown by U.S. warplanes, civilian casualties were inevitable. These
casualties provoked revulsion both in the United States and internationally. In
1967 the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Earle Wheeler,
declared that no more major military targets were left. Unable to widen the
bombing to population centers for fear of Chinese and Soviet reactions in
support of North Vietnam, the U.S. Department of Defense had to admit
stalemate in the air war as well. The damage that had already been inflicted
on Vietnams population was enormous.
C -The Tet Offensive and Beyond
In 1967 North Vietnam and the NLF decided the time had come to mount an
all-out offensive aimed at inflicting serious losses on both the ARVN and U.S.
forces. They planned the Tet Offensive with the hope that this would
significantly affect the public mood in the United States. In December 1967
North Vietnamese troops attacked and surrounded the U.S. Marine base at
Khe Sanh, placing it under siege. Westmoreland ordered the outpost held at
all costs. To prevent the Communists from overrunning the base, about
50,000 U.S. Marines and Army troops were called into the area, thus
weakening positions further south.
This concentration of American troops in one spot was exactly what the
COSVN strategists had hoped would happen. The main thrust of the Tet
Offensive then began on January 31, 1968, at the start of Tet, or the
Vietnamese lunar new year celebration, when a lull in fighting traditionally
took place. Most ARVN troops had gone home on leave, and U.S. troops were
on stand-down in many areas. Over 85,000 NLF soldiers simultaneously
struck at almost every major city and provincial capital across South
Vietnam, sending their defenders reeling. The U.S. Embassy in Saigon,
previously thought to be invulnerable, was taken over by the NLF, and held
for eight hours before U.S. forces could retake the complex. It took three
weeks for U.S. troops to dislodge 1,000 NLF fighters from Saigon.
During the Tet Offensive, the imperial capital of Hue witnessed the bloodiest

fighting of the entire war. South Vietnamese were assassinated by

Communists for collaborating with Americans; then when the ARVN returned,
NLF sympathizers were murdered. United States Marines and paratroopers
were ordered to go from house to house to find North Vietnamese and NLF
soldiers. Virtually indiscriminate shelling was what killed most civilians,
however, and the architectural treasures of Hue were laid to waste. More
than 100,000 residents of the city were left homeless.
The Tet Offensive as a whole lasted into the fall of 1968, and when it was
over the North Vietnamese and the NLF had suffered acute losses. The U.S.
Department of Defense estimated that a total of 45,000 North Vietnamese
and NLF soldiers had been killed, most of them NLF fighters. Although it was
covered up for more than a year, one horrifying event during the Tet
Offensive would indelibly affect Americas psyche. In March 1968 elements of
the U.S. Armys Americal Division wiped out an entire hamlet called My Lai,
killing 500 unarmed civilians, mostly women and children.
After Tet, Westmoreland said that the enemy was almost conquered and
requested 206,000 more troops to finish the job. Told by succeeding
administrations since 1955 that there was light at the end of the tunnel,
that victory in Vietnam was near, the American public had reached a
psychological breaking point. The success of the NLF in coordinating the Tet
Offensive demonstrated both how deeply rooted the Communist resistance
was and how costly it would be for the United States to remain in Vietnam.
After Tet a majority of Americans wanted some closure to the war, with some
favoring an immediate withdrawal while others held out for a negotiated
peace. President Johnson rejected Westmorelands request for more troops
and replaced him as the commander of U.S. forces in Vietnam with
Westmorelands deputy, General Creighton Abrams. Johnson himself decided
not to seek reelection in 1968. Republican Richard Nixon ran for the
presidency declaring that he would bring peace with honor if elected.
V -ENDING THE WAR: 1969-1975
Promising an end to the war in Vietnam, Richard Nixon won a narrow victory
in the election of 1968. Slightly more than 30,000 young Americans had
been killed in the war when Nixon took office in January 1969. The new
president retained his predecessors goal of a non-Communist South
Vietnam, however, and this could not be ensured without continuing the war.
Nixons most pressing problem was how to make peace and war at the same

time. His answer was a policy called Vietnamization. Under this policy, he
would withdraw American troops and the South Vietnamese army would take
over the fighting.
A -Nixons Vietnamization
During his campaign for the presidency, Nixon announced that he had a
secret plan to end the war. In July 1969, after he had become president, he
issued what came to be known as the Nixon doctrine, which stated that U.S.
troops would no longer be directly involved in Asian wars. He ordered the
withdrawal of 25,000 troops, to be followed by more, and he lowered draft
calls. On the other hand, Nixon also stepped up the Phoenix Program, a
secret CIA operation that resulted in the assassination of 20,000 suspected
NLF guerrillas, many of whom were innocent civilians. The operation
increased funding for the ARVN and intensified the bombing of North
Vietnam. Nixon reasoned that to keep the Communists at bay during the U.S.
withdrawal, it was also necessary to bomb their sanctuaries in Cambodia and
to increase air strikes against Laos.
The DRV leadership, however, remained committed to the expulsion of all
U.S. troops from Vietnam and to the overthrow of the Saigon government. As
U.S. troop strength diminished, Hanois leaders planned their final offensive.
While the ARVN had increased in size and was better armed than it had been
in 1965, it could not hold its own without the help of heavy U.S. airpower.
B -Failed Peace Negotiations
Johnson had initiated peace negotiations after the first phase of the Tet
Offensive. Beginning in Paris on May 13, 1968, the talks rapidly broke down
over disagreements about the status of the NLF, which the Saigon
government refused to recognize. In October 1968, just before the U.S.
presidential elections, candidate Hubert Humphrey called for a negotiated
settlement, but Nixon secretly persuaded South Vietnams president, Nguyen
Van Thieu, to hold out for better terms under a Nixon administration. Stating
that he would never negotiate with Communists, Thieu caused the Paris talks
to collapse and contributed to Humphreys defeat as well.
Nixon thus inherited the Paris peace talks, but they continued to remain
stalled as each faction refused to alter its position. Hanoi insisted on the
withdrawal of all U.S. forces, the removal of the Saigon government, and its
replacement through free elections that would include the Provisional
Revolutionary Government (PRG), which the NLF created in June 1969 to take

over its governmental role in the south and serve as a counterpart to the
Saigon government. The United States, on the other hand, insisted that all
North Vietnamese troops be withdrawn.
C -Invasion of Cambodia
In March 1969 Nixon ordered the secret bombing of Cambodia. Intended to
wipe out North Vietnamese and NLF base camps along the border with South
Vietnam in order to provide time for the buildup of the ARVN, the campaign
failed utterly. The secret bombing lasted four years and caused great
destruction and upheaval in Cambodia, a land of farmers that had not known
war in centuries. Code-named Operation Menu, the bombing was more
intense than that carried out over Vietnam. An estimated 100,000 peasants
died in the bombing, while 2 million people were left homeless.
In April 1970 Nixon ordered U.S. troops into Cambodia. He argued that this
was necessary to protect the security of American units then in the process
of withdrawing from Vietnam, but he also wanted to buy security for the
Saigon regime. When Nixon announced the invasion, U.S. college campuses
erupted in protest, and one-third of them shut down due to student walkouts.
At Kent State University in Ohio four students were killed by panicky national
guardsmen who had been called up to prevent rioting. Two days later, two
students were killed at Jackson State College in Mississippi.
Congress proceeded to repeal the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. Congress also
passed the Cooper-Church Amendment, which specifically forbade the use of
U.S. troops outside South Vietnam. The measure did not expressly forbid
bombing, however, so Nixon continued the air strikes on Cambodia until
August 1973.
Three months after committing U.S. forces, Nixon ordered them to withdraw
from Cambodia. The combined effects of the bombing and the invasion,
however, had completely disrupted Cambodian life, driving millions of
peasants from their ancestral lands. The right-wing government then in
power in Cambodia was supported by the United States, and the government
was blamed for allowing the bombing to occur. Farmers who had never
concerned themselves with politics now flooded to the Communist opposition
group, the Khmer Rouge. After a gruesome civil war, the Khmer Rouge took
power in 1975 and became one of the bloodiest regimes of the 20th century.
D -Campaign in Laos

The United States began conducting secret bombing of Laos in 1964,

targeting both the North Vietnamese forces along sections of the Ho Chi Minh
Trail and the Communist Pathet Lao guerrillas, who controlled the northern
part of the country. Roughly 150,000 tons of bombs were dropped on the
Plain of Jars in northern Laos between 1964 and 1969. By 1970 at least onequarter of the entire population of Laos were refugees, and about 400,000
Lao had been killed.
Prohibited by the Cooper-Church Amendment from deploying U.S. troops and
anxious to demonstrate the fighting prowess of the improved ARVN, Nixon
took the advice of General Creighton Abrams and attempted to cut vital
Communist supply lines along the Ho Chi Minh Trail. On February 8, 1971,
21,000 ARVN troops, supported by American B-52 bombers, invaded Laos.
Intended to disrupt any North Vietnamese and NLF plans for offensives and
to test the strength of the ARVN, this operation was as much a failure as the
Cambodian invasion. Abrams claimed 14,000 North Vietnamese casualties,
but over 9,000 ARVN soldiers were killed or wounded, while the rest were
routed and expelled from Laos.
The success of Vietnamization seemed highly doubtful, since the Communist
forces showed that the new ARVN could be defeated. Instead of inhibiting the
Communist Pathet Lao, the U.S. attacks on Laos promoted their rise. In 1958
the Pathet Lao had the support of one-third of the population; by 1973 a
majority denied the legitimacy of the U.S.-supported royal Lao government.
By 1975 a Communist government was established in Laos.
E -Bombing of North Vietnam
In the spring of 1972, with only 6,000 U.S. combat troops remaining in South
Vietnam, the DRV leadership decided the time had come to crush the ARVN.
On March 30 more than 30,000 North Vietnamese troops crossed the DMZ,
along with another 150,000 PRG fighters, and attacked Quang Tr Province,
easily scattering ARVN defenders. The attack, known as the Easter Offensive,
could not have come at a worse time for Nixon and his national security
adviser, Henry Kissinger. A military defeat of the ARVN would leave the
United States in a weak position at the Paris peace talks and would
compromise its strategic position globally.
Risking the success of the upcoming Moscow summit, Nixon unleashed the
first sustained bombing of North Vietnam since 1969 and moved quickly to
mine the harbor of Haiphong. Between April and October 1972 the United

States conducted 41,000 sorties over North Vietnam, especially targeting

Quang Tr. North Vietnams Easter Offensive was crushed. At least 100,000
Communist troops were killed. Vo Nguyen Giap, head of the PAVN and chief
military strategist, was perceived as too conservative in his use of force and
was compelled to resign. His successor, Van Tien Dung, adopted more
aggressive military tactics but also counseled the renewal of negotiations
with the United States.
Further negotiations were held in Paris between Kissinger and Le Duc Tho,
who represented North Vietnam. Seeking an end to the war before the U.S.
presidential elections in November, Kissinger made remarkable concessions.
The United States would withdraw completely, while accepting the presence
of ten North Vietnamese divisions in South Vietnam and recognizing the
political legitimacy of the PRG. Hanoi also made important concessions, such
as dropping its insistence on the immediate resignation of Nguyen Van Thieu,
who had become president of South Vietnam in 1967. Kissinger announced
on October 27 that peace was at hand. The negotiations had not involved
South Vietnam, however, and the Saigon governments acceptance of the
terms was not set as a precondition. Thieu was outraged by the agreement,
and Nixon subsequently refused to sign it.
After the 1972 elections, Kissinger attempted to revise the agreements he
had already made. North Vietnam refused to consider these revisions, and
Kissinger threatened to renew air assaults against North Vietnam unless the
new conditions were met. Nixon then unleashed at Christmas the final and
most intense bombing of the war over Hanoi and Haiphong.
F -United States Withdrawal
While many U.S. officials were convinced that Hanoi was bombed back to the
negotiating table, the final treaty changed nothing significant from what had
already been agreed to by Kissinger and Tho in October. Nixons Christmas
bombings were intended to warn Hanoi that American air power remained a
threat, and he secretly promised Thieu that the United States would punish
North Vietnam should they violate the terms of the final settlement. Nixons
political fortunes were about to decline, however. Although he had won
reelection by a landslide in November 1972, he was suffering from
revelations about the Watergate scandal. The presidents campaign officials
had orchestrated a burglary at the Democratic National Committee
headquarters, and Nixon had attempted to cover it up by lying to the
American people about his role.

The president made new enemies when the secret bombing of Cambodia
was revealed at last. Congress was threatening a bill of impeachment and in
early January 1973 indicated it would cut off all funding for operations in
Indochina once U.S. forces had withdrawn. In mid-January Nixon halted all
military actions against North Vietnam.
On January 27, 1973, all four parties to the Vietnam conflictthe United
States, South Vietnam, the PRG, and North Vietnamsigned the Treaty of
Paris. The final terms provided for the release of all American prisoners of
war from North Vietnam; the withdrawal of all U.S. forces from South
Vietnam; the end of all foreign military operations in Laos and Cambodia; a
cease-fire between North and South Vietnam; the formation of a National
Council of Reconciliation to help South Vietnam form a new government; and
continued U.S. military and economic aid to South Vietnam. In a secret
addition to the treaty Nixon also promised $3.25 billion in reparations for the
postwar reconstruction of North Vietnam, an agreement that Congress
ultimately refused to uphold.
G -Cease-Fire Aftermath
On March 29, 1973, the last U.S. troops left Vietnam. The Paris peace treaty
did little to end the bloodshed for the Vietnamese, however. Problems arose
immediately, primarily over the delineation of two separate zones, as
required by the agreement, and the mutual withdrawal of troops to these
respective zones. Northerners in the Lao Dong leadership wanted to keep
hostilities to a minimum in order to keep the United States out of Vietnam.
However, southerners on both sides refused to give up the fight. Thieu
quickly showed that he had no desire to honor the terms of the treaty, which
he had signed under duress. In his view, the continued presence of North
Vietnamese soldiers in South Vietnam absolved him of honoring the ceasefire agreement. Thieu immediately began offensives against PRG villages,
and he issued an order to the ARVN: If Communists come into your village
shoot them in the head. In October Hanoi authorized southern Communists
to strike back against ARVN troops.
Meanwhile, the withdrawal of U.S. personnel resulted in a collapsing
economy throughout South Vietnam. Millions of people had depended on the
money spent by Americans in Vietnam. Thieus government was ill-equipped
to treat the mass unemployment and deepening poverty that resulted from
the U.S. withdrawal. The ARVN still received $700 million from the U.S.

Congress and was twice the size of the Communist forces, but morale was
collapsing. More than 200,000 ARVN soldiers deserted in 1974 in order to be
with their families.
The apparent weakening of South Vietnam led Hanoi to believe it could win
control over the south through a massive conventional invasion, and it set
1975 as the year to mount a final offensive. Hanoi expected the offensive to
last at least two years; the rapid collapse of the ARVN was therefore a
surprise even to them. After the initial attack by the North Vietnamese in the
Central Highlands northeast of Saigon on January 7, the ARVN immediately
began to fall apart. On March 25 the ancient imperial city of Hue fell; then on
March 29, Da Nang, site of the former U.S. Marines headquarters, was
overtaken. On April 20 Thieu resigned, accusing the United States of
betrayal. His successor was Duong Van Minh, who had been among those
who overthrew Diem in 1963. On April 30 Minh issued his unconditional
surrender to the PRG. Almost 30 years after Ho Chi Minhs declaration of
independence, Vietnam was finally unified.
VI -THE TROOPS
In the United States, military conscription, or the draft, had been in place
virtually without interruption since the end of World War II, but volunteers
generally predominated in combat units. When the first U.S. combat troops
arrived in Vietnam in 1965 they were composed mainly of volunteers. The Air
Force, Navy, and Marines were volunteer units. The escalating war, however,
required more draftees. In 1965 about 20,000 men per month were inducted
into the military, most into the Army; by 1968 about 40,000 young men were
drafted each month to meet increased troop levels ordered for Vietnam. The
conscript army was largely composed of teenagers; the average age of a
U.S. soldier in Vietnam was 19, younger than in World War II or the Korean
War. For the first time in U.S. military history, tours of duty were fixed in
length, usually for a period of 12 or 13 months, and an individuals date of
estimated return from overseas (DEROS) was therefore set at the same time
as the assignment date.
Those conscripted were mostly youths from the poorer section of American
society. They did not have access to the exemptions that were available to
their more privileged fellow citizens. Of the numerous exemptions from
military service that Congress had written into law, the most far-reaching
were student deferments. The draft laws effectively enabled most upper- and
middle-class youngsters to avoid military service. By 1968 it was increasingly

evident that the draft system was deeply unfair and discriminatory.
Responding to popular pressures, the Selective Service, the agency that
administered the draft, instituted a lottery system, which might have
produced an army more representative of society at large. Student
deferments were kept by Nixon until 1971, however, so as not to alienate
middle-class voters. By then his Vietnamization policy had lowered monthly
draft calls, and physical exemptions were still easily obtained by the
privileged, especially from draft boards in affluent communities.
Both North and South Vietnam also conscripted troops. Revolutionary
nationalist ideology was quite strong in the north, and the DRV was able to
create an army with well-disciplined, highly motivated troops. It became the
fourth-largest army in the world and one of the most experienced. South
Vietnam also drafted soldiers, beginning in 1955 when the ARVN was
created. Although many ARVN conscripts were committed anti-Communists,
the Saigon leadership did little to educate ARVN soldiers on the nature of the
war or boost their morale. In 1965, 113,000 deserted from the ARVN; by
1972, 20,000 per month were slipping away from the war.
Although equipped with high-tech weaponry that far exceeded the firepower
available to its enemies, the ARVN was poorly led and failed most of the time
to check its opponents actions. United States troops came to dislike and
mistrust many ARVN units, accusing them of abandoning the battlefield. The
ARVN also suffered from internal corruption. Numerous commanders would
claim nonexistent troopers and then pocket the pay intended for those
troopers; this practice made some units dangerously understaffed. Some
ARVN soldiers were secretly working for the NLF, providing information that
undermined the U.S. effort. At various times, battles verging on civil war
broke out between troops within the ARVN. Internal disunity on this scale was
never an issue among the North Vietnamese troops or the NLF guerrillas.
The armed forces of the United States serving in Vietnam began to suffer
from internal dissension and low morale as well. Racism against the
Vietnamese troubled many soldiers, particularly those who had experienced
racism directed against themselves in the United States. In Vietnam,
Americans routinely referred to all Vietnamese, both friend and foe, as
gooks. This process of dehumanizing the Vietnamese led to many
atrocities, including the massacre at My Lai, and it provoked profound
misgivings among U.S. troops. The injustice of the Selective Service system

also turned soldiers against the war. By 1968 coffeehouses run by soldiers
had sprung up at 26 U.S. bases, serving as forums for antiwar activities. At
least 250 underground antiwar newspapers were published by active-duty
soldiers.
After Nixons troop-withdrawal policy was initiated in 1969, many soldiers
became reluctant to risk their lives for a war without a clear purpose. No
soldier wished to be the last one killed in Vietnam. Especially toward the end
of the war, the fixed one-year tours of duty in Vietnam resulted in a shorttimer mentality in which combat troops became more reluctant to engage
in risky military operations as their departure date approached. In some
cases, entire units refused to go out on combat patrols, disobeying direct
orders.
Soldiers sometimes took out their frustrations and resentments on officers
who put their lives at risk, especially officers they deemed to be incompetent
or overzealous. The term fragging came to be used to describe soldiers
attacking their officers, most often by tossing fragmentation grenades into
the officers sleeping quarters. This practice, which took place mostly late in
the war, was a clear sign that military discipline had broken down in Vietnam.
As the war dragged on and morale sagged within the U.S. armed forces, U.S.
military personnel in Vietnam found it increasingly difficult to carry out their
service.
Incidents in which soldiers were absent without leave (AWOL) also became
more frequent toward the end of the war. Some soldiers who were AWOL for
30 days or more were administratively classified as deserters. Most deserted
for personal, rather than political, reasons. Of 32,000 reported deserters who
were assigned to combat duty in Vietnam, 7,000 had failed to report for
deployment to Vietnam, and 20,000 had completed a full tour of duty in
Vietnam but still had obligations of military service; the remaining 5,000
reported desertions occurred in or near Vietnam. Most who went AWOL or
deserted later returned or were found, and they received less-than-honorable
discharges. Consequently, they received fewer veterans benefits and little, if
any, postcombat rehabilitation.
VII -RESPONSE TO THE WAR IN THE UNITED STATES
Opposition to the war in the United States developed immediately after the
Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, chiefly among traditional pacifists, such as the
American Friends Service Committee and antinuclear activists. Early protests

were organized around questions about the morality of U.S. military

involvement in Vietnam. Virtually every key event of the war, including the
Tet Offensive and the invasion of Cambodia, contributed to a steady rise in
antiwar sentiment. The revelation of the My Lai Massacre in 1969 caused a
dramatic turn against the war in national polls.
Students and professors began to organize teach-ins on the war in early
1965 at the University of Michigan, the University of Wisconsin, and the
University of California at Berkeley. The teach-ins were large forums for
discussion of the war between students and faculty members. Eventually,
virtually no college or university was without an organized student
movement, often spearheaded by Students for a Democratic Society (SDS).
The first major student-led demonstration against the war was organized by
the SDS in April 1965 and stunned observers by mobilizing about 20,000
participants. Another important organization was the Student Non-Violent
Coordinating Committee (SNCC), which denounced the war as racist as early
as 1965. Students also joined The Resistance, an organization that urged its
student members to refuse to register for the draft, or if drafted to refuse to
serve. Vietnam Veterans Against the War was organized in the United States
in 1967. By the 1970s the participation of Vietnam veterans in protests
against the war in the United States had an important influence on the
antiwar movement.
While law enforcement authorities usually blamed student radicals for the
violence that took place on campuses, often it was police themselves who
initiated bloodshed as they cleared out students occupying campus buildings
during sit-ins or street demonstrations. As antiwar sentiment mounted in
intensity from 1965 to 1970 so did violence, culminating in the killings of four
students at Kent State in Ohio and of two at Jackson State College in
Mississippi.
Stokely Carmichael, Malcolm X, and other black leaders denounced the U.S.
presence in Vietnam as evidence of American imperialism. Martin Luther
King, Jr., had grown increasingly concerned about the racist nature of the
war, toward both the Vietnamese and African American soldiers, who
suffered disproportionately high casualty rates early in the war. In 1967 King
delivered a major address at New Yorks Riverside Church in which he
condemned the war, calling the United States the worlds greatest purveyor
of violence.

On October 15, 1969, citizens across the United States participated in The
Moratorium, the largest one-day demonstration against the war. Millions of
people stayed home from work to mark their opposition to the war; college
and high school students demonstrated on hundreds of campuses. A
Baltimore judge even interrupted court proceedings for a moment of
reflection on the war. In Vietnam, troops wore black armbands in honor of the
home-front protest. Nixon claimed there was a great silent majority who
supported the war and he called on them to back his policies. Polls showed,
however, that at that time half of all Americans felt that the war was
morally indefensible, while 60 percent admitted that it was a mistake.
In November 1969 students from all over the country headed for
Washington, D.C., for the Mobilization Against the War. More than 40,000
participated in a March Against Death from Arlington National Cemetery to
the White House, each carrying a placard with the name of a young person
killed in Vietnam.
Opposition existed even among conservatives and business leaders,
primarily for economic reasons. The government was spending more than $2
billion per month on the war by 1967. Some U.S. corporations, ranging from
beer distributors to manufacturers of jet aircraft, benefited greatly from this
money initially, but the high expense of the war began to cause serious
inflation and rising tax rates. Some corporate critics warned of future costs to
care for wounded veterans. Labor unions were also becoming increasingly
militant in opposition to the war, as they were forced to respond to the
concerns of their members that the draft was imposing an unfair burden on
working-class people.
Another factor that turned public opinion against the war was the publication
of the Pentagon Papers on June 13, 1971, by the New York Times. Compiled
secretly by the U.S. Department of Defense, the papers were a complete
history of the involvement of numerous government agencies in the Vietnam
War. They showed a clear pattern of deception toward the public. One of the
senior analysts compiling this history, Daniel Ellsberg, secretly photocopied
key documents and gave them to the New York Times. Subsequently, support
for Nixons war policies plummeted, and polls showed that 60 percent of the
public now considered the war immoral, while 70 percent demanded an
immediate withdrawal from Vietnam.
The Vietnam War cost the United States $130 billion directly, and at least

that amount in indirect costs, such as veterans and widows benefits and the
search for Americans missing in action (MIAs). The war also spurred serious
inflation, contributing to a substantially increased cost of living in the United
States between 1965 and 1975, with continued repercussions thereafter.
Nearly 58,000 Americans lost their lives in Vietnam. More than 300,000 U.S.
soldiers were wounded, half of them very seriously. No accurate accounting
has ever been made of U.S civilians (U.S. government agents, religious
missionaries, Red Cross nurses) killed throughout Indochina.
After returning from the war, many Vietnam veterans suffered from PostTraumatic Stress Disorder, which is characterized by persistent emotional
problems including anxiety and depression. The Department of Veterans
Affairs estimated that 20,000 Vietnam veterans committed suicide in the
wars aftermath. Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, unemployment and rates
of prison incarceration for Vietnam veterans, especially those having seen
heavy combat, were significantly higher than in the general population.
Having felt ignored or disrespected both by the Veterans Administration (now
the Department of Veterans Affairs) and by traditional organizations such as
the Veterans of Foreign Wars and the American Legion, Vietnam veterans
have formed their own self-help groups. Collectively, they forced the
Veterans Administration to establish storefront counseling centers, staffed by
veterans, in every major city. The national organization, Vietnam Veterans of
America (VVA), has become one of the most important service organizations
lobbying in Washington, D.C.
Also in the capital, the Vietnam Veterans Memorial was dedicated in 1982 to
commemorate the U.S. personnel who died or were declared missing in
action in Vietnam. The memorial, which consists of a V-shaped black granite
wall etched with more than 58,000 names, was at first a source of
controversy because it does not glorify the military but invites somber
reflection. The Asian ancestry of its prizewinning designer, Maya Lin, was
also an issue for some veterans. In 1983 a bronze cast was added, depicting
one white, one black, and one Hispanic American soldier. This led to
additional controversy since some argued that the sculpture muted the
original memorials solemn message. In 1993 a statue of three women
cradling a wounded soldier was also added to the site to commemorate the
service of the 11,000 military nurses who treated soldiers in Vietnam.
Despite all of the controversies, the Vietnam Veterans Memorial has become
a site of pilgrimage for veterans and civilians alike.

While the United States has been involved in a number of armed

interventions worldwide since it withdrew from Vietnam in 1973, defense
planners have taken pains to persuade the public that goals were limited and
troops would be committed only for a specified duration. The war in Vietnam
created an ongoing debate about the right of the United States to intervene
in the affairs of other nations.
VIII -EFFECTS AND RECOVERY IN VIETNAM
Although South Vietnam was ostensibly the U.S. ally in the conflict, far more
firepower was unleashed on South Vietnamese civilians than on northerners.
About 10 percent of all bombs and shells went unexploded and continued to
kill and maim throughout the region long after the war, as did buried land
mines. Vietnam developed high rates of birth defects, probably due to the
use of Agent Orange and other chemical defoliants. The defoliants used
during the war also destroyed about 15 percent of South Vietnams valuable
timber resources and contributed to a serious decline in rice and fish
production, the major sources of food for Vietnam.
There were 800,000 orphans created in South Vietnam alone. At least 10
million people became homeless refugees in the south. Vietnams
government punished those Vietnamese who had been allied with the United
States by sending thousands to reeducation camps and depriving their
families of employment. These measures, combined with economic hardships
throughout Vietnam, led to the exodus of about 1.3 million people, most as
refugees to the United States. The children of U.S. soldiers and Vietnamese
women, often called Amerasians, were looked down upon by the
Vietnamese, and many of them immigrated to the United States.
Nixon promised $3.25 billion in reconstruction aid to Vietnam, but the aid
was never granted. Neither Gerald Ford, who became president after Nixons
resignation, nor Congress would assume any responsibility for the
devastation of Vietnam. Instead, in 1975 Ford extended the embargo already
in effect against North Vietnam to all of newly unified Vietnam. In the Foreign
Assistance Appropriation Act of 1976, Congress forbade any assistance for
Vietnam or Cambodia.
President Jimmy Carter attempted to resume relations with Vietnam in 1977,
declaring that the destruction was mutual. Talks broke down, however,
over the issue of American MIAs and over the promised reparations,

especially after the Vietnamese released a copy of Nixons secret letter of

1973, which promised aid without any preconditions. Fearing that
reparations would amount to an admission of wrongdoing, Congress added
amendments to trade bills that also cut Vietnam off from international
lending agencies like the International Bank for Reconstruction and
Development (World Bank) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF).
Normalization of relations was suspended, deepening the economic crisis
facing Vietnam in the aftermath of the wars destruction. The crisis was
worsened by new wars with China and Cambodia in 1978 and 1979; China
canceled any further aid to Vietnam in June 1978.
Cut off from most major sources of aid, the SRV increasingly relied on the
Soviet Union for loans and technical advisers. Faced with widespread hunger
and enormous health problems, the SRV placed an emphasis on restoring
agricultural production. The government vigorously pursued Communist
economic policy, seizing private property, collectivizing plantations, and
nationalizing businesses. About 1 million civilians were forcibly moved from
cities to new economic zones.
Mismanagement and corruption became common, and popular disillusion
with the regime grew. At the Sixth Party Congress in 1986, the SRV
leadership declared Communism a failed experiment and vowed radical
change. Calling the reforms doi moi (economic renovation), the SRV opened
Vietnam to capitalism. After the collapse of the USSR in 1991, the SRV
leadership was forced to move further in this direction.
Stepping up efforts to find American MIAs and cooperating with World Bank
and IMF guidelines for economic reform, Vietnam worked to improve
relations with the United States. In 1994 President Bill Clinton lifted the trade
embargo, and in 1995 the United States formally restored full diplomatic
relations with Vietnam. This initiated a process of normalization that was
completed in 2001 when the U.S. Congress approved an agreement that
established normal trade relations with Vietnam.

Coup dtat

Coup dtat, seizure of an existing government by a small group. This

overthrow is sometimes accompanied by limited violence, as when the head

of state is killed in the coup. A coup d'tat involves relatively few members
of the population, and these few frequently are military officers. Participants
generally control strategic elements of the armed forces and police and have
the cooperation of at least some civilian and political leaders.
For many years the coup d'tat has been used to overthrow governments in
Latin America. Poverty and illiteracy among the people and a long tradition
of military leadership have made these governments especially susceptible
to overthrow from within. This pattern now seems to be appearing in some of
the newly independent nations of Africa.
Golan Heights

Golan Heights, region in southwestern Syria, occupied by Israel since 1967.

The Golan Heights covers 1,250 sq km (483 sq mi). The territory has been
disputed between Israel and Syria since the Six-Day War of 1967.
The Golan Heights is a hilly, basalt plateau with a largely rocky terrain. A
high escarpment overlooks Israel to the west and provides a vantage point
over the city of Damascus and the southern Syrian plain to the north and
east. In the northern part of the region is a mountain range that extends into
Lebanon and rises to a peak of 2,814 m (9,232 ft) at Mount Hermon, the
highest point on the Golan Heights. Mount Hermon is divided among
Lebanon, Israel, Syria, and several United Nations (UN) demilitarized zones.
The foothills surrounding Mount Hermon are used primarily as pastureland
for livestock raising, while more fertile, agricultural land is located mainly in
the south. The Golan Heights and its surrounding area contain various
freshwater sources that are of great economic importance to Israel; these
include the Sea of Galilee (Lake Tiberias), a large reservoir located below the
region's western boundary.
Prior to 1967 the Golan Heights was home to approximately 100,000 Syrians,
many of whom were of Druze or Circassian ethnicity. The principal religions
of the Golan were the Druze religion and the Sunni and Alawite sects of
Islam. Much of the population was involved in supporting Syrian-army bases
located in the region. When Israel drove the Syrian army from the Golan in
the Six-Day War, most of the local population fled into Syria. Several
thousand members of the Druze community remained, however, as well as a
small number of Alawites. Today the Golan has a population of about 33,500

(2002 estimate).
This number includes about 15,000 Druze, 17,000 Israelis, and 1,500
Alawites. The Druze live in a number of towns and villages, particularly in
Majdal Shams, the largest non-Jewish town in the Golan Heights. Much of the
Druze and Alawite population is engaged in orchard agriculture, cattle
grazing, and wage labor in Israeli communities. The Israelis live in
approximately 32 agricultural communities in the southern Golan Heights.
Many Israeli army officers stationed at military bases in the Golan Heights
have settled their families in the government-planned town of Katzrin. Most
of the Israeli population is involved in cereal, cotton, vegetable, and dairy
farming and the region's growing wine industry.
In recent years, the Israeli government has made efforts to expand tourism
in the Golan Heights. Local tourist attractions include the archaeological sites
at Gamla, the Bniys Spring, an ancient synagogue in Katzrin, and the ruins
at Hamat Gader, where ancient baths from natural hot springs have been
rehabilitated. Another point of interest is the Valley of Tears, where one of the
largest tank battles in history took place during the Arab-Israeli War of 1973.
Scenic and recreational attractions in the Golan Heights include natural
pools, waterfalls, gorges, and the ski slopes of Mount Hermon.
The Golan Heights became part of the French mandate of Syria following
World War I (1914-1918), and the region was later passed to independent
Syria. After the founding of Israel in 1948, Israelis started a number of
kibbutzim, or farming cooperatives, in northern Israel near the Syrian border
(see Kibbutz). Syrians fired on the settlements from fortified posts on the
western ridge of the Golan. The dispute that ensued over the strategically
important region was one of the factors that precipitated the Six-Day War of
1967. During the last two days of the war, Israeli armed forces attacked the
Golan Heights. Most of the Syrian army and civilian population fled, and the
area was immediately placed under Israeli military administration. In the
years that followed, numerous Israeli settlements were established in the
region on formerly Arab-held land.
Syria tried but failed to recapture the area in October 1973, when Syrian and
Egyptian armies attacked Israel in the 1973 war. The Israeli army suffered
heavy casualties in the surprise attack, but defeated the Arab forces, thereby
gaining additional territory from Egypt and Syria. Part of the Golan Heights
was demilitarized as a result of the disengagement agreements signed

following the war. By the terms of these agreements, Al Qunayirah, a former

center of Circassian settlement destroyed in the fighting of 1967, was
returned to Syria along with some of the additional land captured in 1973.
Since that time, a buffer zone between the two armies has been patrolled by
UN forces. In 1981 Israel effectively annexed the Golan Heights by extending
Israeli civil law to the region. Syria has refused to recognize Israeli authority
in the region, as have most other countries.
Peace talks between Israel and Syria began in October 1991, centering
largely on the status of the Golan Heights. By 1994 the negotiations were
deadlocked. In March 1995 Israeli and Syrian leaders agreed to meet for a
new round of talks in Washington, D.C. Israel offered to withdraw from the
Golan over a four-year period, and Syria countered with a demand for an 18month withdrawal. Neither side compromised significantly, and in March
1996, following several attacks on Israelis by fundamentalist Muslims, Israel
suspended the talks.
The talks were further postponed after Israel's conservative Likud Party,
which was far less likely to cede territory than its predecessor, won the
country's May election. Whereas Syrian president Hafez al-Assad wanted to
continue the talks from the point reached with Israels former leadership,
Likud prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu insisted that future negotiations
would have to start over from the beginning. Neither course was pursued,
and negotiations were nonexistent during the tenure of the next Israeli prime
minister, Ehud Barak (1999-2001). Subsequent Israeli prime minister Ariel
Sharon shows little sign of willingness to compromise, and the same is true
of Syrian president Bashar al-Assad, who took office upon his fathers death
in 2000.
De Facto

De Facto, in law, phrase used to signify the exercise of a power in spite of the
absence of legal authority. De facto contrasts with de jure, which signifies the
lawful exercise of a power. The phrase is applied when a person or group
occupies public office or purports to exercise political or other authority
without legal right.
In constitutional and international law, de facto means a power exercised but

without established legal basis. It has been applied to a revolutionary

government, such as the Continental Congress, which had no legal basis but
which showed that its authority was effective by its victorious conduct of the
American Revolution. Success in the war resulted in recognition of the
independence of the 13 colonies and in de jure recognition of the Continental
Congress by Britain and other countries. For various reasons, if a country
wishes to enter into relations with a government, revolutionary or otherwise,
but is unwilling to accord de jure recognition, it will generally accord de facto
recognition.
In business law, a de facto corporation is one that is functioning and in
pursuance of an effort made in good faith to organize a corporation within
existing law. If a de facto corporation that has exercised corporate powers for
a considerable period of time inadvertently omits a requirement for
establishing a regular corporation, most courts hold that the corporation is
entitled to practically the same rights and protection as a regularly
constituted, or de jure, corporation.
International Monetary Fund

I -INTRODUCTION
International Monetary Fund (IMF), international economic organization
whose purpose is to promote international monetary cooperation to facilitate
the expansion of international trade. The IMF operates as a United Nations
specialized agency and is a permanent forum for consideration of issues of
international payments, in which member nations are encouraged to
maintain an orderly pattern of exchange rates and to avoid restrictive
exchange practices. The IMF was established, along with the International
Bank for Reconstruction and Development, at the UN Monetary and Financial
Conference held in 1944 at Bretton Woods, New Hampshire. The IMF began
operations in 1947. Membership is open to all independent nations and
included 183 countries in 2001.
II -ACTIVITIES
Members undertake to keep the IMF informed about economic and financial
policies that impinge on the exchange value of their national currencies so
that other members can make appropriate policy decisions. On joining the
fund, each member is assigned a quota in special drawing rights (SDRs), the
fund's unit of account, whose value is based on the weighted average value

of five major currencies. (In October 2001 the SDR was worth about U.S.
$1.29.) Each member's quota is an amount corresponding to its relative
position in the world economy. As the world's leading economy, the United
States has the largest quota. In 2001 the U.S. quota was about SDR 37.1
billion. The smallest quota, that of the Republic of Palau, was about SDR 3.1
million. The amount of the quota subscription determines how large a vote a
member will have in IMF deliberations, how much foreign exchange it may
withdraw from the fund, and how many SDRs it will receive in periodic
allocations.
Members who have temporary balance-of-payments difficulties may apply to
the fund for needed foreign currency from its pool of resources, to which all
members have contributed through payment of their quota subscriptions.
The member may use this foreign exchange for a certain time (up to about
five years) to extricate itself from its balance-of-payments problem, after
which the currency is to be returned to the IMF's pool of resources. The
borrower pays a below-market rate of interest for the IMF resources it uses;
the member whose currency is used receives almost all of these interest
payments; the remainder goes to the fund for operating expenses.
III -ORGANIZATION
The board of governors, made up of leading monetary officials from each of
the member nations, is the highest authority in the IMF. Day-to-day
operations are the responsibility of the 24-member executive board, which
represents member nations individually (for larger countries) or in groups.
The managing director serves as chairperson of the executive board. The IMF
has its main headquarters in Washington, D.C.
Balance of Power

I -INTRODUCTION
Balance of Power, theory and policy of international relations that asserts
that the most effective check on the power of a state is the power of other
states. In international relations, the term state refers to a country with a
government and a population. The term balance of power refers to the
relatively equal power capabilities of rival states or alliances. For example,
the United States and the Soviet Union maintained equivalent arsenals of
nuclear weapons in the 1970s and 1980s, which helped sustain a military
balance of power.

The balance of power theory maintains that when one state or alliance
increases its power or applies it more aggressively, threatened states will
increase their own power in response, often by forming a counter-balancing
coalition. For example, the rise of German power before and during World
War I (1914-1918) and World War II (1939-1945) triggered the formation of
an anti-German coalition, consisting of the Soviet Union, Britain, France, the
United States, and other countries.
II -SIGNIFICANCE TO INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
As a policy, balance of power suggests that states counter any threat to their
security by allying with other threatened states and by increasing their own
military capabilities. The policy of forming a geographically based coalition of
states to surround and block an expansionist power is known as
containment. For example, the United States followed a containment policy
towards the Soviet Union after World War II by building military alliances and
bases throughout Europe, the Middle East, and Asia.
As a theory, balance of power predicts that rapid changes in international
power and statusespecially attempts by one state to conquer a regionwill
provoke counterbalancing actions. For this reason, the balancing process
helps to maintain the stability of relations between states.
A balance of power system functions most effectively when alliances are
fluid, when they are easily formed or broken on the basis of expediency,
regardless of values, religion, history, or form of government. Occasionally a
single state plays a balancer role, shifting its support to oppose whatever
state or alliance is strongest. Britain played this role in Europe in the 18th
and 19th centuries, particularly in its relations with France, Russia, and
Germany. China acted as a balancer during the Cold War, when it shifted its
support between the Soviet Union and the United States.
A weakness of the balance of power concept is the difficulty of measuring
power. Ultimately a states power derives from the size of its land mass,
population, and its level of technology. But this potential powermeasured
roughly by a states Gross Domestic Product (GDP)translates imperfectly
into military capability. The effective use of military force depends on such
elements as leadership, morale, geography, and luck. Furthermore, leaders
misperceptions can seriously distort the calculation of power. During the
Vietnam War (1959-1975), for example, U.S. presidents consistently

underestimated the strength of the Vietnamese Communists because by

conventional measures of power they were much weaker than the United
States.
III -FROM ANCIENT TIMES TO WORLD WAR II
Historical examples of power balancing are found throughout history in
various regions of the world, leading some scholars to characterize balance
of power as a universal and timeless principle. During the Period of the
Warring States in China (403-221 BC), the development of large, cohesive
states accompanied the creation of irrigation systems, bureaucracies, and
large armies equipped with iron weapons. These Chinese states pursued
power through a constantly shifting network of alliances. In ancient Greece
during the Peloponnesian War (431-404 BC), the rising power of Athens
triggered the formation of a coalition of city-states that felt threatened by
Athenian power. The alliance, led by Sparta, succeeded in defeating Athens
and restoring a balance of power among Greek cities.
In the 17th century the Habsburg dynasty, which ruled Austria and Spain,
threatened to dominate Europe. During the Thirty Years War (1618-1648), a
coalition that included Sweden, Britain, France, and the Netherlands
defeated the rulers of the Habsburg Empire. Early in the 19th century, french
emperor Napoleon I repeatedly made efforts to conquer large areas of
Europe. A broad coalition of European statesincluding Britain, Russia,
Austria, and Prussiadefeated France in a series of major battles that
climaxed with Napoleons defeat at the Battle of Waterloo in 1815. The
classical European balance of power system emerged thereafter in an
alliance known as the Concert of Europe, organized in 1815 by Austrian
statesman Klemens von Metternich.
This loose alliance between Britain, Russia, Austria, Prussia, and France
ensured that a handful of great powers would coexist, with none able to
dominate the others. Under this system, and with Britain playing a balancer
role, peace largely prevailed in Europe during the 19th century. During World
War II, Germanys rising power, aggressive conquests, and alliance with Italy
and Japan triggered yet another coalition of opposing statesnotably the
capitalist democracies of Britain and the United States, and the Communist
Soviet Union.
IV -IN THE NUCLEAR AGE
The Cold War standoff between the United States and the Soviet Union

shaped the global balance of power after World War II. Although an actual
war between these two superpowers never occurred, the balance of power
process instead took the form of a massive arms race, in which each
superpower responded by adding to their military buildup. The possession of
large arsenals of nuclear weapons by both the United States and the Soviet
Union ensured that any potential war would prove disastrous for both.
Because of the threat to human survival posed by nuclear weapons, military
strategists often referred to the balance of power as a balance of terror.
During the Cold War, the U.S. policy of containment encircled the Soviet
Union with military and political alliances in Western Europe, the Middle East,
and Southeast Asia. The major U.S. and Soviet military interventions of the
Cold Warin Korea, Vietnam, and Afghanistantook place in politically
contested regions of the world where both superpowers jockeyed for
influence. Small states sometimes benefited from the superpower
competition. In the 1960s, for example, Cubas relations with the United
States soured. At that time, Cuba allied itself with the Soviet Union and
received large economic and military subsidies.
V -IN THE POST-COLD WAR ERA
The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 left the United States as the worlds
sole superpower. Balance of power theory suggests that without the Soviet
threat the United States, as the dominant world power, will face difficulties in
its relations with such states as China and the European powers. For
example, in 1995 and 1996 France openly challenged U.S. actions or
proposals on a range of issues. These included Middle East policy, the
command structure of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the
United Nations, world trade regulations, and responses to conflicts in Africa
and the former Yugoslavia. At the same time, Russian-Chinese relations,
which had been very hostile in the 1970s and 1980s, improved dramatically
in the 1990s. This improvement occurred largely because both countries
feared the predominant power of the United States.
In regional conflicts, balance of power continues to operate in a traditional
manner in the post-Cold War era. For example, in the 1991 Persian Gulf War,
aggression by Iraq catalyzed a broad alliance against that nation. In the
future, the balance of power principle should continue to reduce the
likelihood of aggression. Great powers such as China and Russia, along with
smaller states such as Iraq and North Korea, generally understand that
aggression creates new sources of resistance and is thus self-defeating.

Gross Domestic Product

Gross Domestic Product (GDP), the total value of goods and services
produced in a country over a period of time. GDP may be calculated in three
ways: (1) by adding up the value of all goods and services produced, (2) by
adding up the expenditure on goods and services at the time of sale, or (3)
by adding up producers incomes from the sale of goods or services.
However, it is difficult to measure GDP precisely, partly because every
country has an unofficial economy, often called a black economy, that
consists of transactions not reported to government.
GDP measures a countrys economic activity regardless of who owns the
productive assets in that country. For example, the output of United Statesowned companies based in Australia is considered part of Australias GDP
rather than part of the U.S. GDP. Most countries now consider GDP to be the
best measure of economic activity. However, until as recently as the early
1990s, the United States, Germany, and Japan commonly used the Gross
National Product (GNP) to measure economic activity. GNP is the total of
incomes earned by residents of a country regardless of where the assets are
located. In other words, the income earned by a U.S.-owned business based
in Australia would be considered part of the U.S. GNP, not Australias.
Many economists use the GDP to measure the standard of living in a country.
They divide a countrys GDP by its population to arrive at GDP per head. The
figure is then often converted into U.S. dollars to allow for comparisons
between countries. If GDP grows at a higher rate than the population,
standards of living are said to be rising. If the population is growing at a
higher rate than GDP, living standards are said to be falling. GDP per head
does not take the cost of living into account. As a result, some people believe
it more accurate to judge living standards in other ways.
One estimate of living standards is the Human Development Index, published
for the first time in 1990 by the United Nations Development Program. It
uses a scale of 1 to 100 and takes into account GDP per head, adult literacy,
and life expectancy.
nternational Bank for Reconstruction and Development

I -INTRODUCTION
International Bank for Reconstruction and Development or World Bank,
specialized United Nations agency established at the Bretton Woods
Conference in 1944. A related institution, the International Monetary Fund
(IMF), was created at the same time. The chief objectives of the bank, as
stated in the articles of agreement, are to assist in the reconstruction and
development of territories of members by facilitating the investment of
capital for productive purposes [and] to promote private foreign investment
by means of guarantees or participation in loans [and] to supplement private
investment by providing, on suitable conditions, finance for productive
purposes out of its own capital
The bank grants loans only to member nations, for the purpose of financing
specific projects. Before a nation can secure a loan, advisers and experts
representing the bank must determine that the prospective borrower can
meet conditions stipulated by the bank. Most of these conditions are
designed to ensure that loans will be used productively and that they will be
repaid. The bank requires that the borrower be unable to secure a loan for
the particular project from any other source on reasonable terms and that
the prospective project be technically feasible and economically sound. To
ensure repayment, member governments must guarantee loans made to
private concerns within their territories. After the loan has been made, the
bank requires periodic reports both from the borrower and from its own
observers on the use of the loan and on the progress of the project.
In the early period of the World Bank's existence, loans were granted chiefly
to European countries and were used for the reconstruction of industries
damaged or destroyed during World War II. Since the late 1960s, however,
most loans have been granted to economically developing countries in
Africa, Asia, and Latin America. In the 1980s the bank gave particular
attention to projects that could directly benefit the poorest people in
developing nations by helping them to raise their productivity and to gain
access to such necessities as safe water and waste-disposal facilities, health
care, family-planning assistance, nutrition, education, and housing. Direct
involvement of the poorest people in economic activity was being promoted
by providing loans for agriculture and rural development, small-scale
enterprises, and urban development. The bank also was expanding its
assistance to energy development and ecological concerns.

II -SOURCES OF FUNDS
Subscriptions to, or purchase of, capital shares are worth SDR 100,000
(about $120,000) each. The minimum number of shares that a member
nation must purchase varies according to the relative strength of its national
economy. Not all the funds subscribed are immediately available to the bank;
only about 8.5 percent of the capital subscription of each member nation
actually is paid into the bank (a total of $7.3 billion in mid-1987). The
remainder is to be deposited only if, and to the extent that, the bank calls for
the money in order to pay its own obligations to creditors. There has never
been a need to call in capital. The bank's working funds are derived from
sales of its interest-bearing bonds and notes in capital markets of the world,
from repayment of earlier loans, and from profits on its own operations. It
has earned profits every year since 1947.
All powers of the bank are vested in a board of governors, comprising one
governor appointed by each member nation. The board meets at least once
annually. The governors delegate most of their powers to 24 executive
directors, who meet regularly at the central headquarters of the bank in
Washington, D.C. Five of the executive directors are appointed by the five
member states that hold the largest number of capital shares in the bank.
The remaining 19 directors are elected by the governors from the other
member nations and serve 2-year terms. The executive directors are headed
by the president of the World Bank, whom they elect for a 5-year term, and
who must be neither a governor nor a director. The bank currently has 183
members.
III -AFFILIATES
The bank has two affiliates: the International Finance Corporation (IFC),
established in 1956; and the International Development Association (IDA),
established in 1960. Membership in the bank is a prerequisite for
membership in either the IFC or the IDA. All three institutions share the same
president and boards of governors and executive directors.
IDA is the bank's concessionary lending affiliate, designed to provide
development finance for those countries that do not qualify for loans at
market-based interest rates. IDA soft loans, or credits, are longer term than
those of the bank and bear no interest; only an annual service charge of 0.75
percent is made. The IDA depends for its funds on subscriptions from its
most prosperous members and on transfers of income from the bank. The

IDA had 161 members in 2001.

All three institutions are legally and financially separate, but the bank and
IDA share the same staff; IFC, with 174 members, has its own operating and
legal staff, but uses administrative and other services of the bank.
Membership in the International Monetary Fund is a prerequisite for
membership in the World Bank and its affiliates.
Cold War

I -INTRODUCTION
Cold War, term used to describe the post-World War II struggle between the
United States and its allies and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR)
and its allies. During the Cold War period, which lasted from the mid-1940s
until the end of the 1980s, international politics were heavily shaped by the
intense rivalry between these two great blocs of power and the political
ideologies they represented: democracy and capitalism in the case of the
United States and its allies, and Communism in the case of the Soviet bloc.
The principal allies of the United States during the Cold War included Britain,
France, West Germany, Japan, and Canada. On the Soviet side were many of
the countries of Eastern Europeincluding Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia,
Hungary, Poland, East Germany, and Romaniaand, during parts of the Cold
War, Cuba and China. Countries that had no formal commitment to either
bloc were known as neutrals or, within the Third World, as nonaligned nations
.
American journalist Walter Lippmann first popularized the term cold war in a
1947 book by that name. By using the term, Lippmann meant to suggest
that relations between the USSR and its World War II allies (primarily the
United States, Britain, and France) had deteriorated to the point of war
without the occurrence of actual warfare. Over the next few years, the
emerging rivalry between these two camps hardened into a mutual and
permanent preoccupation. It dominated the foreign policy agendas of both
sides and led to the formation of two vast military alliances: the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), created by the Western powers in 1949;
and the Soviet-dominated Warsaw Pact, established in 1955. Although
centered originally in Europe, the Cold War enmity eventually drew the
United States and the USSR into local conflicts in almost every quarter of the

globe. It also produced what became known as the Cold War arms race, an
intense competition between the two superpowers to accumulate advanced
military weapons.
II -BACKGROUND
Hostility between the United States and the USSR had its roots in the waning
moments of World War I. Soon after the Bolsheviks (later Communists)
overthrew the existing Russian government in October 1917, Bolshevik
leader Vladimir Lenin resolved to withdraw Russia from the war. In 1918 the
United States, along with Britain, France, and Japan, intervened militarily in
Russia.
They did so to restore the collapsed Eastern Front in their war effort against
Germany; however, to Lenin and his colleagues, the intervention represented
an assault on Russias feeble new revolutionary regime. In fact, the European
powers and the United States did resent Russias new leadership, with its
appeals against capitalism and its efforts to weld local Communist parties
into an international revolutionary movement. In December 1922 the Union
of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) was formed as a federal union of Russia
and neighboring areas under Communist control. The United States refused
to recognize the Soviet state until 1933. The deep ideological differences
between the USSR and the United States were exacerbated by the leadership
of Joseph Stalin, who ruled the USSR from 1929 to 1953.
In August 1939, on the eve of World War II, Stalin signed a nonaggression
pact with German dictator Adolf Hitler. The two leaders pledged not to attack
one another and agreed to divide the territory that lay between them into
German and Soviet spheres of influence. Hitler betrayed the agreement,
however, and in June 1941 he launched his armies against the USSR. Britain
and the United States rallied to the USSRs defense, which produced the
coalition that would defeat Germany over the next four years. This AmericanBritish-Soviet coalitionwhich came to be known as the Grand Alliancewas
an uneasy affair, marked by mistrust and, on the Soviet side, by charges that
the USSR bore a heavier price than the other nations in prosecuting the war.
By 1944, with victory approaching, the conflicting visions within the alliance
of a postwar world were becoming ever more obvious.
III -COURSE OF THE COLD WAR
A -The Struggle for Europe

Even before the defeat of Nazi Germany in May 1945, the United States and
the USSR had become divided over the political future of Poland. Stalin,
whose forces had driven the Germans out of Poland in 1944 and 1945 and
established a pro-Communist provisional government there, believed that
Soviet control of Poland was necessary for his countrys security. This met
with opposition from the Allies, and it was not long before the quarrel had
extended to the political future of other Eastern European nations. The
struggle over the fate of Eastern Europe thus constituted the first crucial
phase of the Cold War. Yet during this period, which lasted from 1944 to
1946, both sides clung to the hope that their growing differences could be
surmounted and something of the spirit of their earlier wartime cooperation
could be preserved.
While the United States accused the USSR of seeking to expand Communism
in Europe and Asia, the USSR viewed itself as the leader of historys
progressive forces and charged the United States with attempting to stamp
out revolutionary activity wherever it arose. In 1946 and 1947 the USSR
helped bring Communist governments to power in Romania, Bulgaria,
Hungary, and Poland (Communists had gained control of Albania and
Yugoslavia in 1944 and 1945).
In 1947 United States president Harry S. Truman issued the Truman Doctrine,
which authorized U.S. aid to anti-Communist forces in Greece and Turkey.
Later, this policy was expanded to justify support for any nation that the U.S.
government considered to be threatened by Soviet expansionism. Known as
the containment doctrine, this policy, aimed at containing the spread of
Communism around the world, was outlined in a famous 1947 Foreign Affairs
article by American diplomat George F. Kennan. Containment soon became
the official U.S. policy with regard to the USSR.
By 1948 neither side believed any longer in the possibility of preserving
some level of partnership amidst the growing tension and competition.
During this new and more intense phase of the Cold War, developments in
and around postwar Germany emerged as the core of the conflict. Following
its defeat in World War II, Germany had been divided into separate British,
French, American, and Soviet occupation zones. The city of Berlin, located in
the Soviet zone, was also divided into four administrative sectors. The
occupying governments could not reach agreement on what the political and
economic structure of postwar Germany should be, and in mid-1947 the
United States and Britain decided to merge their separate administrative

zones.
The two Western governments worried that to keep Germany fragmented
indefinitely, particularly when the Soviet and Western occupation regimes
were growing so far apart ideologically, could have negative economic
consequences for the Western sphere of responsibility. This concern echoed a
larger fear that the economic problems of Western Europea result of the
war's devastationhad left the region vulnerable to Soviet penetration
through European Communist parties under Moscow's control. To head off
this danger, in the summer of 1947 the United States committed itself to a
massive economic aid program designed to rebuild Western European
economies. The program was called the Marshall Plan, after U.S. secretary of
state George C. Marshall .
In June 1948 France merged its administrative zone with the joint BritishAmerican zone, thus laying the foundation for a West German republic. Stalin
and his lieutenants opposed the establishment of a West German state,
fearing that it would be rearmed and welcomed into an American-led military
alliance. In the summer of 1948 the Soviets responded to the Western
governments plans for West Germany by attempting to cut those
governments off from their sectors in Berlin through a land blockade. In the
first direct military confrontation between the USSR and the Western powers,
the Western governments organized a massive airlift of supplies to West
Berlin, circumventing the Soviet blockade. After 11 months and thousands of
flights, the Western powers succeeded in breaking the blockade.
Meanwhile, in February 1948 Soviet-backed Communists in Czechoslovakia
provoked a crisis that led to the formation of a new, Communist-dominated
government. With this, all the countries of Eastern Europe were under
Communist control, and the creation of the Soviet bloc was complete. The
events of 1948 contributed to a growing conviction among political leaders in
both the United States and the USSR that the opposing power posed a broad
and fundamental threat to their nations interests.
The Berlin blockade and the spread of Communism in Europe led to
negotiations between Western Europe, Canada, and the United States that
resulted in the North Atlantic Treaty, which was signed in April 1949, thereby
establishing the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). The Berlin crisis
also accelerated the emergence of a state of West Germany, which was
formally established in May 1949. (The Communist republic of East Germany,

comprising the remainder of German territory, was formally proclaimed in

October of that year.) And finally, the Berlin confrontation prompted the
Western powers to begin thinking seriously about rearming their half of
Germany, despite the divisiveness of this issue among West Europeans.
The death of Joseph Stalin in 1953 had a significant impact on the course of
the Cold War. His successors, including Nikita Khrushchev, who ultimately
replaced Stalin as Soviet leader, sought to ease some of the rigidities of
Soviet policy toward the West, but without resolving the core issue: a divided
Germany at the heart of a divided Europe. The Western powers responded
cautiously but sympathetically to the softening of Soviet policy, and in the
mid-1950s the USSR and the Western powers convened the first of several
summit conferences in Geneva, Switzerland, to address the key issues of the
Cold War.
These issues now included not only the problem of German reunification, but
also the danger of surprise nuclear attack and, in the background, the
momentarily quieted but still unresolved conflicts in Korea and Indochina (for
more information, see The Cold War Outside Europe below). The 1955
Geneva Conference achieved little progress on the central issues of
Germany, Eastern Europe, and arms control. However, on the eve of the
conference the two sides resolved the issue of Austria, which had been
united with Germany during the war and divided into American, British,
French, and Soviet occupation zones in its aftermath. The signing of the State
Treaty between Austria and the Allies established Austrias neutrality, freed it
of occupation forces, and reestablished the Austrian republic.
This period also saw fundamental change in one critical realm: Both the
United States and the USSR came to recognize that nuclear weapons had
produced a revolution in military affairsmaking war among the great
powers, while still a possibility, no longer a sane policy recourse.
Meanwhile, the struggle over Europe continued. West Germany was
recognized as an independent nation in 1955 and was allowed to rearm and
join NATO. In response to this development, a group of Eastern European
Communist nations led by the USSR formed the Warsaw Pact . In the late
1950s Khrushchev launched a new series of crises over Berlin, and in 1961
the Soviet government built the Berlin Wall to prevent East Germans from
fleeing to West Germany.
B -The Cold War Outside Europe

In 1950 the superpowers involvement in Third World areaslimited

previously to sporadic joustingchanged suddenly, as the USSR and the
United States became entangled in an Asian war. In June of that year, Stalin
appeared to endorse the plans of North Korean Communist leader Kim Il
Sung to attack South Korea, assumingaccording to documents that have
since come to lightthat the United States and other major powers would
not get involved. This mistaken assumption led to the Korean War (19501953), which pitted American-led United Nations forces against the military
forces of North Korea and China (which had become a Communist republic
under the leadership of Mao Zedong in late 1949). The first armed conflict of
the Cold War, the Korean War led to a major increase in defense spending by
the United States.
Because American leaders saw Stalins actions in Korea as a potential
precursor to aggressive movements in Europe, the war helped prompt the
United States to turn NATO into an ambitious and permanent military
structure.
In 1954, following the military defeat of France in its bid to reclaim Vietnam
in the First Indochina War (1946-1954), the great powers assembled in
Geneva with representatives from Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia to negotiate
an end to that conflict. Among other provisions, the resulting agreement,
known as the Geneva Accords, provided for the temporary partition of
Vietnam into northern and southern portions, with the Viet Minh (a
Communist group seeking Vietnamese independence) concentrated in North
Vietnam and the French and their Vietnamese supporters in the south. To
avoid permanent partition, the accords called for national elections to reunify
the country to be held in 1956. When the South Vietnamese refused to hold
the elections because Viet Minh leader Ho Chi Minh was favored to win, the
North Vietnamese began to seek the overthrow of the South Vietnamese
government.
The Vietnam War, which began in 1959, pitted the Communist North
Vietnamese and the National Liberation Front, a Vietnamese nationalist
group based in South Vietnam, against the South Vietnamese. In 1965 the
United States sent troops into Vietnam to fight alongside the South
Vietnamese. A long and bloody conflict, the Vietnam War lasted until 1975.
Before it ended, it spread to the neighboring countries of Laos and
Cambodia, where it continued long after 1975. In Cambodia, the war brought
to power the Communist movement known as the Khmer Rouge, led by Pol

Pot, whose regime inflicted a genocidal massacre on the Cambodian people.

Meanwhile, by the mid-1960s the Communist world had been dramatically
reconfigured as the result of an increasingly bitter and open split between
the USSR and China. The dispute stemmed in part from ideological
disagreements but also reflected the intense rivalry of two former empires.
The most serious Cold War confrontation between the United States and the
USSR that took place in the Third Worldone that raised the specter of
nuclear waroccurred in 1962. In the summer of that year, the U.S.
government discovered that the Soviets were in the process of deploying
nuclear missiles in Communist Cuba. In October the United States moved to
block Soviet ships carrying missiles to Cuba. The resulting standoff, during
which the world stood seemingly on the brink of ultimate disaster, ended
with Khrushchev capitulating to the demands of U.S. president John F.
Kennedy. From the Cuban missile crisis both sides learned that risking
nuclear war in pursuit of political objectives was simply too dangerous. It was
the last time during the Cold War that either side would take this risk.
In the early and mid-1960s the great powers even superimposed their
competition on local conflicts in faraway Africa. In newly independent nations
such as the Republic of the Congo (now the Democratic Republic of the
Congo) and Nigeria, the United States and the USSR chose sides and lent
military backing and other assistance to groups or leaders thought to be
sympathetic to their interests. In the Middle East, the underlying conflict
between Israel and its Arab neighbors became entangled with maneuvering
by the superpowers to push one another out of the region. The Arab-Israeli
wars of 1956, 1967, and 1973 drew in the United States and the USSR,
creating the possibility of escalation to a direct confrontation between them.
In the early 1970s the tenor of the Cold War changed. During the first
administration of U.S. president Richard Nixon (1969-1973), the United
States and the USSR sought to put their relationship on a different footing.
While neither side abandoned its basic positions, the two superpowers tried
to take the first steps toward controlling the costly nuclear arms race and
finding areas for mutually advantageous economic and scientific
collaboration.
Dtente, as this policy came to be called, collapsed in the second half of the
1970s, when the American-Soviet competition in the Third World intensified
once again, this time during the civil war in Angola and the Somali-Ethiopian

war over the Ogadn region. During this phase of the Cold War, Communist
Cuba played a significant role alongside the USSR, while the Chinese, now
deeply wary of the USSR, participated on the side of the United States.
IV -END OF THE COLD WAR
The early 1980s witnessed a final period of friction between the United
States and the USSR, resulting mainly from the Soviets invasion of
Afghanistan in 1979 to prop up a Communist regime and from the firm line
adopted by U.S. president Ronald Reagan after his 1980 election. Reagan
saw the USSR as an evil empire. He also believed that his rivals in Moscow
respected strength first and foremost, and thus he set about to add greatly
to American military capabilities. The Soviets initially viewed Reagan as an
implacable foe, committed to subverting the Soviet system and possibly
willing to risk nuclear war in the process.
Then in the mid-1980s Mikhail Gorbachev came to power in the USSR.
Gorbachev was determined to halt the increasing decay of the Soviet system
and to shed some of his countrys foreign policy burdens. Between 1986 and
1989 he brought a revolution to Soviet foreign policy, abandoning long-held
Soviet assumptions and seeking new and far-reaching agreements with the
West. Gorbachevs efforts fundamentally altered the dynamic of East-West
relations. Gorbachev and Reagan held a series of summit talks beginning in
1985, and in 1987 the two leaders agreed to eliminate a whole class of their
countries nuclear missilesthose capable of striking Europe and Asia from
the USSR and vice versa. The Soviet government began to reduce its forces
in Eastern Europe, and in 1989 it pulled its troops out of Afghanistan.
That year Communist regimes began to topple in the countries of Eastern
Europe and the wall that had divided East and West Germany since 1961 was
torn down. In 1990 Germany became once again a unified country. In 1991
the USSR dissolved, and Russia and the other Soviet republics emerged as
independent states. Even before these dramatic final events, much of the
ideological basis for the Cold War competition had disappeared. However,
the collapse of Soviet power in Eastern Europe, and then of the USSR itself,
lent a crushing finality to the end of the Cold War period.
Westphalia
Westphalia, Peace of, treaty, signed October 24, 1648, that closed the Thirty
Years' War and readjusted the religious and political affairs of Europe. It is so
called because the negotiations, which began in 1644, took place in the

German cities of Mnster and Osnabrck, in Westphalia. The main

participants were France and Sweden and their opponents Spain and the
Holy Roman Empire. By the terms of the treaty, the sovereignty and
independence of each state of the Holy Roman Empire was fully recognized,
making the Holy Roman emperor virtually powerless.
Among the territorial provisions of the treaty were the following: France was
confirmed in the possession of the city of Pinerolo in Piedmont (Piemonte)
and the bishoprics of Metz, Toul, and Verdun in Lorraine. Also, the town of
Breisach on the east bank of the Rhine River and most of Alsace were ceded
to France. Sweden obtained western Pomerania, with Stettin, Wismar, and
the islands of Rgen and Poel, thus gaining control of the Baltic Sea.
The archbishopric of Bremen and the bishopric of Verden were also ceded to
Sweden, and both Sweden and France obtained the right to vote in the diet
of the Holy Roman Empire. As compensation for its cessions in Pomerania,
Brandenburg obtained Cammin and the bishoprics of Halberstadt and
Minden, together with succession to the archbishopric of Magdeburg.
Mecklenburg-Schwerin was enlarged by the bishoprics of Schwerin and
Ratzeburg in compensation for Wismar. Hessen-Kassel obtained the rich
abbacy of Hersfeld, and Saxony (Sachsen) was allowed to retain Lusatia. The
Lower Palatinate was restored to Charles Louis, eldest son of the elector of
the Palatinate Frederick V, and an eighth electorate was created in his favor;
the Upper Palatinate was confirmed to Bavaria. Also, the de facto
independence of Switzerland and of the United Provinces of the Netherlands
was recognized. The overall result of this political reorganization was that
France, mainly at the expense of the Austrian Habsburgs, emerged as the
chief power on the Continent.
The provisions with respect to ecclesiastical affairs included the interdiction
of all religious persecution in Germany and the confirmation of the Treaty of
Passau (1552) and the religious Peace of Augsburg (1555). According to the
treaty, the religion of each German state was to be determined by the
religion of its princeRoman Catholic, Lutheran, or Calvinist. If a prince
changed his religion he would forfeit his lands; this provision was included as
a method of checking the spread of the Reformation. The Peace of
Westphalia marked the close of the period of religious wars. Thereafter,
European armed struggles were waged principally for political ends.
International Organization

I -INTRODUCTION
International Organization, membership group that operates across national
borders for specific purposes. Scholars of international relations consider
international organizations to have growing importance in world politics.
Examples of international organizations include the United Nations (UN), the
World Bank (see International Bank for Reconstruction and Development),
the International Committee of the Red Cross, and Green peace.
Most international organizations operate as part of one or more international
regimes. An international regime is a set of rules, standards, and procedures
that govern national behavior in a particular area. Examples of international
regimes include arms control, foreign trade, and Antarctic exploration.
International organizations are often central to the functioning of an
international regime, giving structure and procedures to the rules of the
game by which nations must play. For example, the World Trade
Organization (WTO), the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and
the European Union (EU) are key organizations that define the international
trade regime.
II -TYPES OF INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
International organizations fall into two main categories: intergovernmental
organizations and nongovernmental organizations. Intergovernmental
organizations (IGOs) have national governments as members. Hundreds of
IGOs operate in all parts of the world. Member nations have created each of
these organizations to serve a purpose that those nations find useful.
Membership can range from as few as two member nations to virtually all
nations. The UN and its various agencies are IGOs. So are most of the worlds
economic coordinating institutions, such as the World Bank and the
International Monetary Fund (IMF). The Organization of Petroleum Exporting
Countries (OPEC) seeks to coordinate the production and pricing policies of
its 12 member states. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) seeks
to regulate the flow of nuclear technology to developing nations. The WTO
helps negotiate and monitor agreements among 128 nations to lower trade
barriers. Military alliances, such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
(NATO) and the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO), and political
groupings, such as the Arab League, and the Organization of African Unity
are also IGOs. In general, regional IGOs have experienced more success than

global ones, and those with specific purposes have worked better than those
with broad aims.
Nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) are private organizations whose
memberships and activities are international in scope. NGOs do not possess
the legal status of national governments. However, the UN and other
international forums recognize many NGOs as important political institutions.
Examples of NGOs include the Roman Catholic Church, Green peace, the
International Olympic Committee, and the International Committee of the
Red Cross. Although multinational corporations (MNCs) share many
characteristics of NGOs, they are not international organizations because
they do not coordinate the actions of members for mutual gain.
III -HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
Historically, international organizations and regimes have reflected the
interests of the worlds most powerful nations, or great powers. Many
international organizations and regimes were established during times of
global hegemonythat is, when one nation has predominated in
international power. These periods have often followed a major war among
the great powers. Todays international organizationssuch as the UN, the
Organization of American States (OAS), and the World Bankwere created
after World War II ended in 1945, when the United States was powerful
enough to create rules and institutions that other countries would follow.
Although rooted in power, international organizations and regimes generally
serve the interests of most participating nations and usually endure even
when hegemony wanes. Most countries share mutual interests, yet find it
hard to coordinate their actions for mutual benefit because of the lack of a
central authority. Nations also face the temptation to bend the rules in their
own favor. For example, it is in everyones interest to halt production of
chemicals that damage the earths ozone layer. However, a country can save
money by continuing to use those chemicals. The coordination of efforts to
write new rules and monitor them requires an international organization.
For example, the United Nations Environment Program helped countries
negotiate a treaty to stop producing ozone-destroying chemicals. Thus,
nations find it useful to give international organizations some power to
enforce rules. Most countries follow the rules most of the time.
In the 18th century, German philosopher Immanuel Kant and French
philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau broadly outlined the concept of a global

federation of countries resembling todays UN. Nations joined the first IGOs
in the 19th century. These were practical organizations through which
nations managed specific issues, such as international mail service and
control of traffic on European rivers. Such organizations proliferated in the
20th century to cover a wide variety of specific issues. At the same time, the
scope of international organizations expanded, culminating with the creation
of the League of Nations in 1920.
The development of European regional organizations after World War II
ended in 1945 mirrored the growth of IGOs historically, in that narrowly
focused organizations preceded broader and more encompassing
international institutions. The European Coal and Steel Community,
predecessor of the European Union, coordinated coal and steel production. In
the 1990s, the European Commission, executive agency of the European
Union, enforces regulations concerning labor, the environment, and a host of
other issues that affect the daily lives of virtually every citizen in Europe.
NGOs similarly developed from the need to coordinate specific, narrowly
defined activities across national borders. Beginning in the 19th century,
churches and professional and scientific occupational groups formed the first
NGOs. Some political partiesnotably Communist Parties in the early 20th
centuryorganized internationally and began to function as NGOs. In the
20th century, specialized NGOs also sprang up in such areas as sports,
business, tourism, and communication.
Between 1945 and 1995, the number of IOs increased fivefold, reaching
about 500 IGOs and 5000 NGOs. On average, a new NGO is created
somewhere in the world every few days. This trend reflects the growing
importance of international coordination for both governmental and private
institutions in an interdependent world.
IV -INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS IN THE POST-COLD WAR ERA
One sign of the important role of international organizations is how they have
endured as international power relations shift. In 1991, the Soviet Union
dissolved and the Cold War between the Soviet Union and the United States
ended. At this time, one might have expected the NATO military alliance to
Russia and other formerly Communist countries in Eastern Europe ceased to
pose a threat to the capitalist democracies of Western Europe. One might
have expected NATO, which defended Western European nations, to go out
of business, but it did not. Similarly, the creation of the WTO did not cause

smaller free-trade associations such as NAFTA to end. Instead, the mosaic of

IOs continues to expand, particularly as new communications and
information-processing technologies make international groups more
practical and effective.
The interdependence of nations in the modern world means that no single
nation can dictate the outcome of international conflicts. Nor can private
groups and individuals rely on national governments to solve major world
problems. Therefore, both governments and individuals will continue to turn
to IOs as an important way to address these problems and to protect their
own interests.
1980: Pakistan

Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

The occupation of Afghanistan by Soviet troops, beginning in December
1979, raised Pakistani fears for their own security. The government
undertook three main approaches in dealing with the crisis. The first
approach was to explore a possible revitalizing of the relationship with the
United States. Early in the year, the United States offered $400 million in
economic and military aid to Pakistan, in an attempt to provide a modicum of
security, but Pakistan turned it down, considering it an inadequate response
to the grave threat facing the country and believing that only a formal treaty
approved by the U.S. Congress would send the necessary message to
Moscow. The unwillingness of the Carter administration to proceed along
these lines was reportedly taken to indicate a lack of American seriousness.
A visit by the U.S. presidential national security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski,
to Pakistan failed to resolve many of the two nations' differences.
A second approach was based on the belief that concerted action by the
Islamic bloc would make it more difficult for the Soviets to sustain the
occupation or, at least, to move against other countries. Toward this end, an
Islamic Foreign Ministers Conference was held in the Pakistani capital of
Islamabad in late January and again in May, and a special group composed of
representatives of three countries, including Pakistan, was set up to seek
ways of resolving the Afghan situation and securing the withdrawal of Soviet
troops.

Pakistan's friendship with China suggested a third approach to the Afghan

situation. While it was acknowledged that Peking's options were somewhat
limited, its support for Pakistan was expected to discourage Moscow from
taking any major action against the Pakistanisparticularly if China's support
was coordinated with American assistance.
The presence of over a million Afghan refugees in Pakistan has been an
additional source of potential trouble between Pakistan and the Soviet Union.
Two Pakistanis were killed in a border attack in late September, and the
Soviets made numerous reconnaissance flights over the refugee camps. In
addition, the refugees are an economic burden that Pakistan can ill afford.
Pakistan's President Muhammad Zia ul-Haq met with U.S. President Jimmy
Carter in early October to discuss economic assistance for the refugees,
among other matters of concern.
Other foreign relations.
The fall of the shah of Iran, in 1979, led to initial concern in Islamabad,
because of the traditionally close relations between Iran and Pakistan during
the years of the monarchy. However, a rapport was established with the
revolutionary regime in Tehran on matters of regional interest. In September,
Zia undertook a "goodwill" mission to Tehran and Baghdad, aimed at
exploring a possible end to the Iran-Iraq war; he was politely received but
given no encouragement.
Relations with India became critically important due to the sensitive situation
on the Pakistani-Afghan border. Relations had improved under the
government of Morarji Desai; the return of Indira Gandhi to power was
expected to lead to difficulties, with India playing a tougher role as regional
leader.
U.S. opposition to the Pakistani nuclear program continued, although public
condemnation was muted by the events in Afghanistan. When the United
States agreed to send enriched uranium nuclear fuel to India, Pakistanis
believed that they were being singled out for punishment and that there was
a legitimate need to continue the program. On August 31, Pakistan
announced that the country had become self-sufficient in nuclear fuel
production for the Karachi nuclear power plant.
Government and politics.
The grave repercussions that had been predicted following the execution of
former Premier Zulfikar Ali Bhutto in 1979 did not materialize in 1980.

Domestic political demands were toned down somewhat, in light of the

Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, although there was some pressure for a
return to civilian government. Political activity remained banned, and the
military government made vague promises for free elections, but no date
was set. In the meantime, the population was polarized between leftist and
rightist elements, with strong grass-roots support for an increased
Islamization of the country.
This summer, the government announced the formation of "Zakat"
committees for the collection of taxes to be distributed to the poor and
needy, as prescribed under Islamic law. The Shiite community, comprising
some 15 million people, objected to the mandatory program and also
contended that their contributions should be distributed within their own
community and not dispersed by the government. This led to a major
demonstration by the Shiite Muslims in Islamabad, as a result of which the
government exempted them from these laws.
Economy.
Pakistan's economic performance improved during 1979-1980. The overall
growth rate was 6.2 percent, with manufacturing improving by 8.1 percent
(up from a 7.4 percent increase in 1978-1979) and agriculture by 6 percent
(up from 4.2 percent in the previous year). The government reported that the
average annual growth rate in Pakistan over the past three years was
6.4percent, in sharp contrast with an annual growth of 3.7 percent during
1970-1977.
There were record harvests of wheat, at 10.87 million tons, and cotton, at 4.2
million tons, not only because of an increase in the area under cultivation but
also because of a significant increase in the yield per acre. Specific efforts
were taken to move the country toward food self-sufficiency, such as price
supports, promotion of rust-resistant wheat varieties, provision of fertilizer
and irrigation water, encouragement of the use of farm machines, and
educational programs for farmers.
Despite these gains, the economic situation remained precarious. In the
absence of national savings, the country remained heavily dependent on
external borrowing, which totaled $822 million for the period from December
1979 to July 1980. Foreign aid commitments during 1979-1980 totaled $939
million, compared with $1,426 million for 1978-1979. Total pledges from the
Aid Pakistan consortium (both bilateral and multilateral) amounted to $675

million, as compared with $845 million for 1978-1979. U.S. assistance

remained limited to $40 million in agricultural commodities. Pakistan's
current foreign debt stood at $5.5 billion, which constituted nearly 32
percent of the gross national product, and Pakistan was unable to get any
debt rescheduling.
Pakistan's oil import bill (a factor in its debt problems) amounted to $1.2
billion for 1979-1980. Efforts to offset this high cost from indigenous sources
have thus far yielded modest results, with only 10 percent of the 1980 oil
consumption being met from domestic output.
Area and population.
Area, 310,724 sq. mi. Pop. (est. 1980), 86.5 million. Principal cities (est.
1975): Islamabad (cap.), 250,000; Karachi, 3,500,000; Lahore, 2,100,000.
Government.
Islamic republic under martial law. Pres. and chief martial law administrator,
Gen. Muhammad Zia ul-Haq.
Finance.
Monetary unit: Pakistani rupee; 1 rupee = US$0.1030.
Trade (est. 1979-1980).
Exports, $1.8 billion; imports, $3.2 billion. Principal exports: rice, raw cotton,
cotton yarn, cotton cloth, wool carpets, leather, fish, sports goods. Principal
imports: petroleum products, wheat, edible oils, fertilizers, tea, chemicals,
tires, medicines, iron and steel.
Education (est. 1979-1980).
Enrollment: primary schools, 5.9 million; secondary schools, 1.3 million; high
schools, 500,000; junior colleges, 195,000; universities, 28,500. Literacy
rate, 19.8%.
Agriculture (est. 1979-1980).
Production (in millions of tons): wheat, 10.87; cotton, 4.2; rice, 3.2;
sugarcane, 27.
Armed forces (est. 1980).
Army, 408,000; navy, 13,000; air force, 17,600; paramilitary forces, 109,000
League of Nations

I -INTRODUCTION
League of Nations, international alliance for the preservation of peace. The

league existed from 1920 to 1946. The first meeting was held in Geneva, on
November 15, 1920, with 42 nations represented. The last meeting was held
on April 8, 1946; at that time the league was superseded by the United
Nations (UN). During the league's 26 years, a total of 63 nations belonged at
one time or another; 28 were members for the entire period.
II -THE COVENANT AND THE UNITED STATES
In 1918, as one of his Fourteen Points summarizing Allied aims in World War
I, United States president Woodrow Wilson presented a plan for a general
association of nations. The plan formed the basis of the Covenant of the
League of Nations, the 26 articles that served as operating rules for the
league. The covenant was formulated as part of the Treaty of Versailles,
which ended World War I, in 1919.
Although President Wilson was a member of the committee that drafted the
covenant, it was never ratified by the U.S. Senate because of Article X, which
contained the requirement that all members preserve the territorial
independence of all other members, even to joint action against aggression.
During the next two decades, American diplomats encouraged the league's
activities and attended its meetings unofficially, but the United States never
became a member. The efficacy of the league was, therefore, considerably
lessened.
III -LEAGUE STRUCTURE
The machinery of the league consisted of an assembly, a council, and a
secretariat. Before World War II (1939-1945), the assembly convened
regularly at Geneva in September; it was composed of three representatives
for every member state, each state having one vote. The council met at least
three times each year to consider political disputes and reduction of
armaments; it was composed of several permanent membersFrance,
Britain, Italy, Japan, and later Germany and the Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics (USSR)and several nonpermanent members elected by the
assembly. The decisions of the council had to be unanimous. The secretariat
was the administrative branch of the league and consisted of a secretary
general and a staff of 500 people. Several other bodies were allied with the
league, such as the Permanent Court of International Justice, called the World
Court, and the International Labor Organization.
IV -WORLD INVOLVEMENT
The league was based on a new concept: collective security against the

criminal threat of war. Unfortunately, the league rarely implemented its

available resources, limited though they were, to achieve this goal.
One important activity of the league was the disposition of certain territories
that had been colonies of Germany and the Ottoman Empire before World
War I. Supervision of these territories was awarded to league members in the
form of mandates. Mandated territories were given different degrees of
independence, in accordance with their stage of development, their
geographic situation, and their economic status.
The league may be credited with certain social achievements. These include
curbing international traffic in narcotics and prostitution, aiding refugees of
World War I, and surveying and improving health and labor conditions around
the world. In the area of preserving peace, the league had some minor
successes, including settlement of disputes between Finland and Sweden
over the land Islands in 1921 and between Greece and Bulgaria over their
mutual border in 1925. The Great Powers, however, preferred to handle their
own affairs; France occupied the Ruhr, and Italy occupied Corfu (Krkira),
both in 1923, in spite of the league.
Although Germany joined the league in 1926, the National Socialist (Nazi)
government withdrew in 1933. Japan also withdrew in 1933, after Japanese
attacks on China were condemned by the league. The league failed to end
the war between Bolivia and Paraguay over the Chaco Boreal between 1932
and 1935 and to stop the Italian conquest of Ethiopia begun in 1935.
Finally, the league was powerless to prevent the events in Europe that led to
World War II. The USSR, a member since 1934, was expelled following the
Soviet attack on Finland in 1939. In 1940 the secretariat in Geneva was
reduced to a skeleton staff, and several small service units were moved to
Canada and the United States. In 1946 the league voted to effect its own
dissolution, whereupon much of its property and organization were
transferred to the UN.
V -LEGACY
Never truly effective as a peacekeeping organization, the lasting importance
of the League of Nations lies in the fact that it provided the groundwork for
the UN. This international alliance, formed after World War II, not only
profited by the mistakes of the League of Nations but borrowed much of the
organizational machinery of the league.
VI -MEMBERSHIP

The accompanying table lists the countries that were members of the
international organization. Where no date is given, the country was an
original member of the league. The year in parentheses is the year of
admission to the league unless otherwise indicated.
Iran-Iraq War

I -INTRODUCTION
Iran-Iraq War, armed conflict that began when Iraq invaded Iran in
September 1980 and ended in August 1988 after both sides accepted a
cease-fire sponsored by the United Nations (UN). The war was one of the
longest and most destructive of the 20th century, with likely more than one
million casualties. Despite the conflict's length and cost, neither Iran nor Iraq
made significant territorial or political gains, and the fundamental issues
dividing the countries remained unresolved at the end of the war.
II -BACKGROUND
The border between Iraq and Iran has been contested diplomatically and
sometimes militarily for several centuries. After the Ottoman Empire
conquered present-day Iraq in 1534, making it the easternmost part of its
empire, Iran, its eastern neighbor, became a frequent rival. More recently,
when Iraq was made a separate state in the aftermath of World War I (19141918), Iraq and Iran disagreed sharply over the precise border between
them, especially in the area of the Shatt al Arab, a river channel providing
Iraq's only outlet to the sea, via the Persian Gulf. In 1937 the two sides came
to an agreement establishing a boundary that gave Iraq control of the Shatt
al Arab.
Despite the border agreement, relations between Iran and Iraq continued to
suffer periodic crises for two reasons. First, although Iraq is predominantly
Arab and Iran is predominantly Persian, the border still cut across some
political loyalties. In the north, a large population of Kurds (who are neither
Arab nor Persian) straddled both sides of the border. Along the southern part
of the border, an Arab minority inhabited the Iranian province of Khzestn
among a Persian majority. Furthermore, the largest portion of the Iraqi
population is Shia Muslim (see Shia Islam), as is the majority of the Iranian
population. Shia religious leaders at odds with the secular (nonreligious)
government of their own country sometimes sought refuge in the other,
straining Iranian-Iraqi relations. The most prominent refugee was Ayatollah

Ruhollah Khomeini, a leading Shiae religious scholar who settled in Iraq after
being exiled from Iran in 1964.
The second reason Iran and Iraq continued to suffer crises was that both
countries were politically unstable. When either Iran or Iraq experienced a
revolution or coup, the other country would exploit the troubled countrys
political weakness to gain a diplomatic advantage. As Western countries,
especially the United Kingdom, gradually lost influence in the area in the
mid-20th century, both Iran and Iraq felt freer to pursue more ambitious
foreign policies, unhindered (and at times even supported) by external
powers. By the beginning of the 1970s both Iran and Iraq sought broader
influence in the region. Under Muhammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, Iran felt it
could assert its authority in the area, partly with the backing of the United
States. Iraq, governed by the Arab nationalist regime of Major General
Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr, sought to unite and strengthen the Arab world and
reject Western influence. These opposing views created a bitter rivalry
between the neighboring countries.
III -PRELUDE TO WAR
In the early 1970s Iraq's Kurdish population rebelled against the country's
government, and Iran joined several other countries in supporting the
insurgency. At peace talks in Algiers, Algeria, in 1975, Iran agreed to
abandon its support for the Kurdish rebellion in return for an agreement by
Iraq to share the Shatt al Arab waterway with Iran. Thereafter, the border
between Iran and Iraq was drawn down the middle of the Shatt al Arab rather
than along its eastern (Iranian) bank as agreed in 1937.
In January 1979 followers of Ayatollah Khomeini led a revolution that toppled
the shah. The following month, Khomeini returned to Iran and began to take
control of the new government. In April, after a popular referendum,
Khomeini declared the establishment of an Islamic republic. The revolution
posed what seemed to be both an enormous opportunity and a dire threat to
the Iraqi government, now under the control of Saddam Hussein. On the one
hand, Iran was in disarray. The various elements in the coalition that
overthrew the shah were badly divided and the army was being purged.
Further, the taking of American hostages in November 1979, combined with
the desire of the new government to free the country from all foreign
influence, left Iran internationally isolated. Never had Iraqs rival been so
vulnerable.

On the other hand, Iranian Shia Muslims had carried out the successful
revolution against the shahs secular government. Their success excited
many Iraqi Shias with the possibility of similar gains in their country.
Although Shiaes also constitute the majority of Muslims in Iraq, the Sunnis
(Sunni Islam) had long held political power in Iraqs secular government.
Cautiously, the domestic opposition to Husseins strong-handed government
became emboldened. One Iraqi religious leader in particular, Muhammad
Baqir al-Sadr, emerged with ideas very similar to Khomeinis. Al-Sadr was
soon arrested and executed, bringing protests from some Iraqi Shias as well
as a crisis in Iranian-Iraqi relations.
While these events were unfolding, some Iranian officials made no secret of
their desire to have other Muslim countries follow their path of Islamic
revolution. A crisis between Iran and Iraq escalated during 1980 as the two
countries accused each other of border violations and interfering in each
others internal affairs. Iraq responded to the escalation by repudiating the
1975 agreement giving Iran access to the Shatt al Arab. On September 22,
Iraq further escalated the conflict, launching the full-scale invasion of Iran
that initiated eight years of warfare.
IV -INVASION AND COUNTERATTACK
Iraqi troops invaded Iran along a front some 500 km (300 mi) long. Numerous
and well-equipped Iraqi forces overwhelmed the small Iranian border units
and advanced into southwestern Iran. With the far side of the Shatt al Arab
thus secured, Iraq captured the southern border city of Khorramshahr in the
oil-rich Khzestn province and began besieging other towns along the
frontier. However, the Iranian resistance was stiffer than Iraq expected. Using
its superior naval power, Iran quickly mounted an effective sea blockade.
Standing up to Iraqs larger air force, the Iranian air force issued retaliatory
raids that checked Iraqs advance on the ground. In January 1981 Iran
launched its first counteroffensive, but Iraq decimated the assault. The war
entered a protracted stalemate.
The stalemate did little to encourage either country to engage in diplomatic
dialogue. The Iraqi government accused Iran of being bent on regional
domination, while the Iranian government called for revolution in Iraq. Briefly
in 1981 Iraq stopped fighting and expressed some willingness to consider a
cease-fire, but Iran rejected any attempt to stop the war while Iraq occupied
Iranian territory. Thereafter, the Iranian leadership staked out a very firm
diplomatic position, claiming that it would never accept negotiations with the

Iraqi government.
As the stalemate continued, Iran was able to mobilize irregular forces
(groups not normally part of the army but drafted and armed in response to a
crisis), including the Revolutionary Guard, an ill-trained but dedicated core of
fighters. By early 1982, the struggle for political power in postrevolutionary
Iran was resolved, allowing the government to pursue a more coherent war
policy. Iran seized the initiative with several offensives that pushed Iraq out
of much of Iran and brought the fighting into Iraqi territory. Throughout the
summer and fall of 1982, Iranian attacks along the border focused on
splitting the south of Iraq, where the majority of the Shias lived, from the
north and capturing the southern Iraqi city of Al Barah.
The Iranian offensives of 1982 set a pattern that continued for the rest of the
war. Exploiting their superiority in numbers, Iran sent its Revolutionary Guard
on the attack, supported by regular military forces. Outnumbered Iraqi forces
inflicted heavy losses on the Iranians but ultimately fell back. As soon as the
initial Iranian thrust had exhausted itself, however, the Iraqi army exploited
Iranian disorganization and lack of equipment to retake much of the lost
territory.
As the war continued, Iraqs defense grew increasingly desperate. Probably
as early as 1983 the armed forces used poison gas against Iranian troops.
Iraq also widened the war to civilian targets, launching missiles against
Iranian cities, bombing Iranian oil installations, and attacking Iranian shipping
in the Persian Gulf. Iran responded with attacks against civilian and economic
targets in Iraq.
V -DIPLOMACY AND INTERNATIONAL INVOLVEMENT
The diplomatic situation mirrored the battlefield. Iraq had initiated the war
with the conviction that a weak and isolated Iran would surrender and accept
border modifications. The Iraqi leadership undoubtedly hoped to constrain
and perhaps even bring down the Iranian revolutionary leadership.
As the war progressed, however, Iraq scaled down its aims drastically. While
it continued its harsh criticism of the Iranian leadership (and sometimes of
the Iranian people) and supported dissident Iranian groups, Iraq accepted the
idea of a cease-fire and negotiations concerning the border dispute.
The Iranian leadership probably perceived the Iraqi diplomatic retreat as a
sign of further weakness. After evicting Iraq from most Iranian territory by

1982, Iran was reluctant to end the war until Iraq acknowledged that, as
instigator, it bore full responsibility for the wars disastrous consequences.
Iran continuously rejected a cease-fire on terms that Iraq could accept,
demanding huge reparation payments and an end to Husseins rule before it
would stop fighting. These conditions effectively killed any hope of a
peaceful resolution.
International reaction to the Iran-Iraq War was remarkably muted, at least at
the outset. Although the United Nations Security Council called for a ceasefire after a week of fighting and renewed the call on later occasions, the
initial call was made while Iraq occupied Iranian territory. Moreover, the UN
refused to come to Irans aid to repel the Iraqi invasion. The Iranians thus
interpreted the UN as subtly biased in favor of Iraq. Outside the UN, other
governments took few constructive steps to end the fightingwhich was
unusual for a war of such proportions. The international silence was partly
caused by Irans international isolation and the mutual hostility between Iran
and the West in the wake of Irans Islamic revolution. Further, Iran did not
actively seek international support, wanting to remain free of relationships
that might make it beholden to other nations. Iraq, expecting an easy victory
against a vulnerable opponent, also did not seek international support in the
early stages of the war.
Only within the Middle East did either side seek to win diplomatic support.
Most Arab states regarded Iraq warily but were even more frightened by the
prospect of a victory by the revolutionary Iranian regime. Slowly at first, then
more quickly after 1982, most Arab statesespecially Egypt, Jordan, Saudi
Arabia, and the other states of the Arabian Peninsulaaided Iraq militarily
and diplomatically. Iran had few friends in the region: Syria, a longtime rival
of Iraq, stood out in the Arab world for its support of Iran, and at times Libya
offered its support.
As the war wore on and Iraq failed to persuade Iran to accept a cease-fire,
Iraq sought increasingly to internationalize the conflict. It first made clear
that it would accept international mediation, casting pressure on Iran to do
the same. Iraq also attacked Iranian shipping; this brought Iranian reprisals
against not only Iraqi shipping but also the shipping of Iraq's backers (such
as Kuwait). Western powers, including the United States and the Union of
Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), were eventually drawn to the Persian Gulf
to protect the valuable shipments of oil from the Middle East.

The prolonged fighting forced both sides to search desperately for military
equipment, even if it meant dealing with former enemies. At the start of the
war, Iraq had no diplomatic relations with the United States due to its
friendly relations with the USSR and its longstanding conflict with Israel, the
main U.S. ally in the Middle East. As the war continued, however, Iraq toned
down its rhetoric to gain American support. The United States responded by
giving trade credits to Iraq and supplying the Iraqi armed forces with
intelligence information through Saudi Arabia. Equally important, the United
States dropped objections to efforts by its allies, especially France, to give
weapons and other supplies to Iraq. The United States was motivated in part
by a desire to back its friends in the region (most of whom supported Iraq),
and in part by its fear of the broader consequences of an Iranian victory. Iraq
also relied heavily on the USSR for military supplies.
Iran was also willing to accept support from its former enemies. Since Irans
military had been built under the rule of the pro-American shah, most of its
equipment was of American origin. So while the new revolutionary
government was hostile to both the United States and Israel, it needed
American spare parts. Israel could supply some of these and chose to do so
early in the war. Israel was anxious to undercut Iraq, a potential Arab
adversary. Equally remarkable, the United States government opened a
secret channel for selling arms to Iran in 1985, even as it urged other
governments to stop all military sales to the country (see Iran-Contra Affair).
American motives seemed designed partly to induce pro-Iranian groups in
Lebanon to release Americans held captive there, and partly to improve
relations with Iran. Profits from the arms sales were channeled to right-wing
guerrillas in Nicaragua, known as contras, to supply arms for use against the
leftist Nicaraguan regime. The exposure of the secret policy in 1986 greatly
embarrassed the government of U.S. president Ronald Reagan.
VI -MOUNTING LOSSES
As the war continued, Iraq, no longer believing it could achieve the sweeping
victory it had hoped for at the outset, concentrated more and more on simply
preventing an Iranian victory. Nevertheless, by 1986 Iraq's condition grew
increasingly desperate. Its ability to hold its defensive positions was
threatened by Irans willingness to suffer enormous casualties. Iran sent
massive numbers of older men, children, and sometimes women as human
waves against Iraqs better-equipped forces. Although thousands upon
thousands of these poorly armed forces were slaughtered with each assault,
the Iranian government continued to send them to the front. With its larger

population, Iran seemed confident that it would ultimately prevail. Iraq also
mustered civilians not normally called on to fight, and by the mid-1980s its
population was severely strained.
In 1986 Iran captured the Iraqi gulf town of Al Fw. Iraq responded with more
effective techniquesespecially the use of massive amounts of poison gas
to thwart Irans frontal assaults. Iraq also stepped up its attacks on Iranian
cities, oil installations, and shipping, drawing severe Iranian reprisals against
Iraqi oil production and shipping that prompted more American activity in the
gulf. Although clashes between American and Iranian forces fell far short of
full-scale battles, the American presence nevertheless brought an end to
Iranian superiority over Iraq at sea, giving Iraq time to resupply its weaponry
and stop the Iranian ground advance.
VII -CEASE-FIRE
In 1987 Iran's leaders prepared for what they hoped would be a last round of
offensives to end the war and topple the Iraqi government. As the situation
became steadily graver, international concern mounted. In July the United
Nations Security Council passed Resolution 598, calling for both sides to stop
fighting, withdraw to the prewar border, and submit to an international body
to determine responsibility for the war. Iraq seized on the resolution, but Iran
refused to end hostilities with victory so near. Iran continued its attacks but
did not achieve the victory for which it had hoped.
By 1988 Iraq, sufficiently rearmed and regrouped, drove the Iranians out of
Al Fw and several other border areas. Iran was in no position to launch a
counterattack, and the international situation seemed increasingly favorable
to Iraq. Many Iranian leaders concluded that the war could not be won and
worked to persuade Khomeini to accept Resolution 598. Although the
resolution failed to provide key Iranian aimssuch as an end to Husseins
government, payment of reparations, or clear identification of Iraq as the
initiator of the warKhomeini endorsed the cease-fire in July. On August 20,
1988, both sides ceased fighting in accordance with the terms of Resolution
598.
VIII -CONSEQUENCES AND AFTERMATH
The Iran-Iraq War lasted just short of eight years and resulted in catastrophic
destruction in both countries. Because both Iran and Iraq used irregular
military units, attacked civilian populations, and played down their own
losses while playing up those of their opponents, reliable casualty figures do
not exist. For example, Iran claimed to have lost 200,000 or fewer of its own

citizens, while Iraq claimed to have killed 800,000 Iranians. Neutral estimates
come closer to the Iranian claim but are uncertain. Because of different
battlefield techniques, Iraqs deaths were probably about half those suffered
by Iran. The total number of people killed almost certainly exceeds 300,000.
Wounded and captured soldiers push the casualty total over one million, and
some estimates of total casualties exceed two million.
The war was also extremely destructive to each countrys economy.
Estimates vary, but the wars total cost, including military supplies and
civilian damages, probably exceeded $500 billion for each side. Both Iran and
Iraq sacrificed their considerable oil wealth to the war for nearly a decade,
and Iraq was forced to borrow heavily, especially from its allies on the
Arabian Peninsula.
Remarkably, the war led to no tremendous political change in either country.
Despite having led his country into a disastrous military conflict, Hussein
emerged from the war more secure than before; he even claimed the Iranian
failure to unseat him represented a tremendous Iraqi victory. The Iranian
government could have ended the war in 1982 on only marginally different
terms from those obtained six years later, yet the ensuing years of fruitless
struggle consolidated rather than undermined Iranian popular support for the
Islamic republic.
Internationally, the war resolved few issues between the two countries.
Although Resolution 598 called for both sides to withdraw to the prewar
border, release prisoners, and negotiate all outstanding issues, these terms
proved difficult to implement and negotiations remained deadlocked for two
years. In some ways the Iran-Iraq War contributed to the outbreak of the
Persian Gulf War in 1991: It left Iraq with a strong army and large debts to
Arab nations, including Kuwait. Iraq cited Kuwaits refusal to forgive Iraqs
war debt as one reason for invading its oil-rich neighbor. Only when Iraq was
forced into desperate straits during the Gulf War did it move to repair its
relationship with Iran. Iraq withdrew from Iranian territory, agreed to restore
the 1975 border, and engaged in a large-scale prisoner exchange. Both sides
charged the other with retaining some prisoners, however, and the border
demarcation remained incomplete. A decade after the 1988 cease-fire, Iran
and Iraq had yet to settle these differences.
1945: Great Britain And British Colonies

The story of Great Britain in 1945 is in part the story of a nation at war. The
cessation of hostilities, which occurred in Europe in May and in Asia in
September, has not meant that the life of the British people is no longer
affected by the pattern set by the stern necessities of warfare. The effects of
the war, the general election that brought a new administration into office,
and the measures taken or announced for dealing with the problems of the
peace are the three topics of chief significance to be touched upon in this
account; but some attention is directed also to what may be termed the
normal occurrences of the national life.
Area and Population.
The Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has an area of 94,269
square miles, of which 5,534 square miles are in Northern Ireland; the Isle of
Man and the Channel Islands add 296 square miles to the total. In 1941 the
population of Great Britain was given as 46,467,000 and that of Northern
Ireland as 1,288,000. The estimated total today is between 48,000,000 and
49,000,000; of this, somewhat less than 2,000,000 persons live in Northern
Ireland, while, in Britain somewhat more than 5,000,000 persons live in
Scotland, which in 1941 had a population of 5,007,000. The birth rate has
risen during the war. Wartime additions to maternity and child welfare
services are credited with reducing the number of still births from 36 per
1,000 in 1940, to 28 per 1,000 in 1944, and in lowering maternity mortality
from 2.61 per 1,000 in 1940, to 1.94 per 1,000 in 1944.
Resignation of War Cabinet.
At the opening of the year 1945, Great Britain had a coalition Government, in
which the Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, who took office on May 10,
1940, was a Conservative as had been his immediate predecessor, Neville
Chamberlain. Members of other political parties were in the Cabinet, but the
Conservative Ministers were in a sense the senior partners of the coalition.
The rule of Cabinet unanimity, which means that all members of the
Government must agree, at any rate on major issues, with the Prime
Minister, was in force for the coalition. Responsibility for the conduct of the
war rested with Mr. Churchill; few, if anyone, would deny that as a War Prime
Minister his performance was magnificent. After the German surrender, the
Prime Minister asked his Liberal and Labor colleagues to continue in the
Government until the defeat of Japan. This they were unwilling to do. The
1940 coalition ended on May 23 when Churchill resigned, effecting the
resignation of the entire ministry. He resumed office on the same day at the

king's request, with a new and wholly Conservative Cabinet. Its members
were referred to in the press as the "Caretaker Ministers." Dissolution of
Parliament was announced to take place on June 15, to be followed by a
general election on July 5.
The parliament, thus terminated, had a life of almost ten years, from
November 14, 1935, during which great events transpired. In England, one
king died, a second abdicated, a third was crowned; and three Conservative
Prime Ministers held office, Stanley Baldwin, Neville Chamberlain, and
Winston Churchill. The greater part of Europe was overrun by the Germans.
For a time Great Britain stood alone against the Nazi menace; then the
German invasion of Russia and the Japanese attack on the United States
turned a European struggle into a global war. When the people of Great
Britain went again to the polls in a parliamentary election, victory had come
in Europe and was not far off in Asia. The great issues of this 1945 election
were not concerned with the prosecution of the war but with postwar
reconstruction and the problems of the peace.
July Elections.
The results of the election were not made known for three weeks, until July
26. In three constituencies the candidates were unopposed; for the other
637seats there were almost 1,700 candidates, of whom 88 were women;
there were 291 three cornered, 39 four-cornered, and 7 five-cornered
contests. After the election, but before the results had been tabulated and
made public, the best guess seemed to be that the Conservatives were
returned with a small majority. What happened was a Labor landslide. One of
the most significant features of the election was the fate of the "Caretaker
Ministers": of forty members of the Government, (sixteen Cabinet Ministers,
twenty-four without Cabinet rank), thirty-one, including some of the most
prominent, lost their parliamentary seats.
New House of Commons.
The July elections resulted in a Labor victory, astonishing in its scope. Of the
640 members of the new House of Commons 393 are Laborites and 189
Conservatives; lesser groups elected 44 members, of whom 20 may be
counted as supporters of the Labor Government and 24 as in the Opposition;
14 members are listed as Independents. Of the Labor members, only 119
belong to trade unions; more than 40 are lawyers; 16 are journalists; 10 are
physicians; a considerable number are teachers. The total includes some
with many years of parliamentary experience, and more than 100 who have

been concerned in local government work.

New Cabinet.
The new Prime Minister was Clement Attlee. His Cabinet which has twenty
members is in size close to prewar standards; there were twenty-three
Cabinet Ministers in 1939, twenty-one in 1929, and twenty in 1924.
Of the members of the new Cabinet several besides Mr. Attlee were Ministers
in the coalition Government. Herbert Morrison, now Lord President of the
Council, was Secretary for Home Affairs and Minister for Home Security; a
Member of Parliament in 1923-1924, 1929-1931, and since 1935, Morrison
was Minister of Transportation in his second term. Ernest Bevin, now
Secretary for Foreign Affairs, was Minister of Labor and Minister of National
Service.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, Hugh Dalton, was President of the Board of
Trade; he has had seventeen years' experience in the House of Commons, a
distinguished career at Cambridge and the University of London, and a high
reputation as university lecturer and author. Mr. Dalton has been succeeded
at the Board of Trade by Sir Stafford Cripps, formerly Minister for Aircraft
Production, who has been in Parliament since 1931 and has served also as
Solicitor General and Ambassador to Russia. A. V. Alexander retains his post
as First Lord of the Admiralty, which he has held since 1940. The new Lord
Chancellor, Sir William A. Jowitt, raised to the peerage as Lord Jowitt, was
Minister without Portfolio; a Member of Parliament from 1920 to 1931 and
again since 1939, he was Attorney General from 1929 to 1932.
In addition to members of the preceding Cabinet, several of the new
Ministers held lesser administrative positions under the coalition. The
Secretary for the Home Department, James Chuter Ede, with wide experience
in county and local government, was Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of
Education.
The Secretary for the Colonies, George Henry Hall, a Member of Parliament
since 1922, was Financial Secretary to the Admiralty. Joseph Westwood, now
Secretary for Scotland, was Parliamentary Under-secretary for Scotland.
George Alfred Isaacs, who has succeeded Ernest Bevin as Minister of Labor
and of National Service, was Parliamentary Private Secretary to the First Lord
of the Admiralty. The new Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, Tom Williams,
was Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture; a Member of
Parliament since 1922, he was in the Ministry of Labor from 1929 to 1931
and in the Ministry of Agriculture in 1924. The Minister of Education, Miss

Ellen Wilkinson, who is the only woman in the Cabinet, was Parliamentary
Secretary for the Ministry of Home Security; she was on the Manchester City
Council from 1923 to 1926, and Member of Parliament from 1924 to 1931
and since 1935.
New Cabinet Ministers whose administrative experience in government
antedates the coalition are the Secretary for War, John James Lawson, who
was Financial Secretary for the War Office in 1924, Parliamentary Secretary
to the Ministry of Labor from 1929 to 1931; and the Minister of Fuel and
Power, Emanuel Shinwell, who was Parliamentary Secretary to the
Department of Mines in 1924 and in 1930-1931, and Financial Secretary to
the War Office in 1929-1930. The two peers (other than Lord Jowitt) in the
new Government have both been Cabinet Ministers. The Secretary for
Dominion Affairs, Lord Addison, (formerly Dr. Christopher Addison) who was
given a peerage in 1937 and is Leader of the Labor Party in the House of
Lords, was for a time Minister of Munitions in World War I and in 1921
became the first Minister of Health. The Secretary for Air, Viscount
Stansgate, (William Wedgwood Benn), who joined the Labor Party in 1927
after twenty-one years in Parliament as a Liberal, was Secretary for India
from 1929 to 1931.
Background of Members of Labor Government.
The Labor Government like the whole group of Labor Members of Parliament,
is a cross-section of society, but predominantly middle class. There are two
somewhat overlapping groups. About 200 members of the Labor Party in
Parliament are or have been engaged in some professional work or
occupation; the other big group includes trade union organizers and
secretaries, miners, railway men, and so on. To return to the Cabinet, the
Minister of Health, Aneurin Bevan, began working as a coal miner when he
was thirteen years old; the Secretary for War, Mr. Lawson, and the Secretary
for the Colonies, Mr. Hall, both worked in the collieries as lads of twelve. On
the other hand, there are Ministers who are university-trained and have
made a name for themselves in learned professions. Nobody has jumped
from colliery to Cabinet; a vast deal of parliamentary experience, of
experience in local government, of dealing with social and economic
problems is to be found in the careers of such Ministers as Hall and Lawson
and Bevan. It is interesting, too, to note that of the twenty-three women in
the House of Commons, only one is a Conservative and one a Liberal; the
others belong to the Labor Party. The present House of Commons has an
unusually large proportion of new members: 240 Labor M.P.'s were elected

for the first time. Among the Labor members, 126 have been in the fighting
services during the war. An immediate problem that Mr. Attlee's
administration may have to face is the salary of members; a good many
M.P.'s, without private means and with no support from trade union
treasuries, will find that the salary of 600 a year is altogether too small.
The War.
Civilian Casualties.
During the first months of the year 1945, Great Britain was still subject to
enemy attack. In December, 1944, there were 367 civilians killed in Great
Britain and 847 injured; that brought the total of civilian casualties from air
raids in 1944 to 30,449, of whom 8,465 were killed and 21,985 injured. In
January, 1945, there were 585 persons killed and 1,629 injured. After a break
of more than eight months, raids by piloted aircraft were resumed by the
Germans in March. The great majority of civilian casualties in the last phase
of the war came from the V-2 rocket bombs that were aimed at London and
did most of their damage in and about the metropolis. The first V-2 bomb
was fired on September 8, 1944; the last on March 27, 1945. Between these
dates 1,050 V-2 bombs reached England; they killed 2,754 persons and
injured 6,523 others; the property damage, which was considerable, included
the whole or partial destruction of thirty-five hospitals and forty-five
churches. The total number of civilians killed in Great Britain by air raids to VE Day was 60,585, of whom 26,920 were men, 25,392 were women, 7,736
were children, and 537 were unidentified. There were also 86,175 persons
injured in the air raids: 40,736 men, 37,816 women, and 7,623 children. The
total number of civilian air raid casualties were thus 146,760. Air raid
casualties among the armed forces in Great Britain seem not to have been
published; among the civilian casualties, "children" means all persons under
sixteen, and "injured" is a term restricted to those who were hospitalized.
Property Damage.
As regards the destruction effected by enemy attacks on Britain, by the
autumn of 1944 there had been some 4,500,000 houses damaged or
destroyed by enemy action, and one-quarter of these had been bombed after
D-Day. There were in London alone 719,000 bomb-damaged houses in
January 1945; fifty-one percent of these had been repaired and made
"tolerably comfortable." The destruction wrought by the V-2 bombs after the
beginning of 1945 was mostly, though not wholly, in London and its environs;
this would add considerably to the figure here given.

Military Casualties.
Since the cessation of hostilities figures have been published that give
additional details regarding British military operations and their cost. In the
great invasion and the campaigns following it, the British casualties in
western Europe, including Canadian casualties, numbered 184,512, between
D-Day and V-E Day; of these, 39,599 were killed, 18,368 missing, and
126,545 wounded. In the armed forces, and thus excluding civilians,
merchant seamen, and members of the Home Guard, casualties for the war
reached a total of 750,338; of these, 233,042 were killed, 57,472 missing,
275,975 wounded, and 183,849 were taken prisoner. These are for the British
forces alone and they do not include losses suffered by troops from the
Dominions, India, or the Colonies; they are figures listed as of May 31, and
therefore include no losses incurred in operations against Japan between that
date and V-J Day. The casualties incurred in the armed forces from the
Dominions, India, and the Colonies numbered 483,458; of these 103,730
were killed, 40,641 were missing, 192,413 were wounded, and 330,523 were
prisoners. India led with a total of 177,315 casualties; Canada had 101,008;
Australia 92,211; the remainder were almost evenly divided among New
Zealand, South Africa, and the Colonies. From the beginning of the war to V-E
Day, 730 vessels of the Royal Navy were lost: 5 battleships, 8 aircraft
carriers, 26 cruisers, 128 destroyers, 77 submarines, 51 minesweepers, 48
drifters, and 240 trawlers. In addition to these, note may be made of the loss
of 23 vessels of the Canadian Navy, and of 13 Australian, 5 Indian, 4 South
African, and 1 New Zealand vessel, a total of 46 vessels belonging to the
naval forces of other parts of the empire. The British lost also 16,385 aircraft,
of which 9,163 were Bomber Command, 3,558 Fighter Command, 70 Army
Cooperation Command, 1,479 Coastal Command, and 2,115 of the Second
Tactical Air Force.
Total Cost of War.
It is probably true that no measurably accurate estimate can be made of the
total cost of any great war, yet 1,200,000,000 has been suggested as the
figure for property damage that the British people have suffered on land, and
225,000,000 as the figure for their losses on the seas. Of greater
significance than the disastrous effects of warfare on the wealth and
resources of a nation is the effect on the people. It would be idle to maintain
that the recent long-continued war has had no unfortunate effects on the
British people; yet the great fires which enemy air raids set blazing and
which damaged or destroyed millions of buildings did not weaken British

determination to continue the struggle to its successful conclusion, nor is

there reason to believe that the war has undermined or shattered the finer
qualities of the British people. Enemy attacks made much more difficult all
kinds of war work, but they did not end or seriously decrease it. The Port of
London, for instance, was one of the special targets of German air attacks,
and it suffered grievously; none the less, between the beginning of June and
the end of August, 1944, there were there loaded and dispatched 311,000
personnel of the British Liberation Army, with 123,400 vehicles and 666,000
tons of general stores and ammunition, in 2,000 ships. (The round numbers
are in each case less than the exact figure.)
Taxation.
Some indication of the effects of the war on the tax-payer can be found by
comparing the numbers of persons in various ranges of income, after
income-tax has been paid, immediately before the war with the numbers
during the war. In the lower brackets the numbers showed a marked
increase, the 150 to 250 group rose from 4,500,000 to 7,000,000, the
250 to 500 group from 1,820,000 to 5,300,000, and the 500 to 1,000
group from 450,000 to 550,000. The higher bracket income groups
decreased in size: the 1,000 to 2,000 group from 155,000 to 117,000 and
the 2,000 to 4,000 group from 56,000 to 31,700. In the top brackets the
reduction was yet sharper: the 4,000 to 6,000 group fell from 12,000 to
1,170; in the year 1938 there were some 7,000 persons with an income of
6,000 or more, but in 1942-1943there were only 80 persons who, after the
tax, had so much income. At the rate of $4- to 1 that means that in Great
Britain there were then only eighty persons who after paying income tax had
an income of $24,000 or more. Steady employment and a marked increase in
wages account for the marked increase in the number of persons in the lower
income groups, with, of course, the addition of persons whose incomes, after
the payment of the greatly increased income taxes of war years, were
smaller than in prewar years; the decline in the number of persons with large
incomes is presumably attributable to the heavy taxes.
Expenditures.
In January, 1945, the British Government was spending money at the rate of
about 14,500,000 a day, of which 12,500,000 was spent on the fighting
forces. Five months later it was stated that the average expenditure "for the
last few days" had lessened to about 12,250,000, of which 11,000,000
went to the fighting services. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir John
Anderson, in his interim Budget presented to the House of Commons in April,

estimated the expenditures for the fiscal year 1945-46 at 5,565,000,000

and the revenue at 3,265,000,000, leaving an estimated deficit of
2,300,000,000 to be met by borrowing. This allowed 4,500,000,000 for the
prosecution of the war and 1,065,000,000 for other purposes. This was less
by 372,000,000 than the 5,937,000,000 estimate for the preceding fiscal
year; the difference was more than taken up by the decrease in the estimate
for war expenditure. The estimated deficient was 534,000,000 less than
that of the preceding year and was also a smaller percentage of the total; in
other words, a larger proportion of Government spending in 1945-46 would
be raised by taxes. Early in June the Commons passed a vote of credit for
1,750,000,000, and four months later another vote of credit,
2,000,000,000, for war expenditures. When the first Labor Budget was
presented to Parliament on October 23 the new Chancellor of the Exchequer
said that Sir John Anderson's estimate made six months before was about
correct.
New Income Taxes.
The Budget introduced by the Labor Government provided for a number of
changes in the income tax. Personal allowances were raised from 80 to
110 for single persons and from 140 to 180 for married couples. The
exemption limit was raised to 120. On the first 50 of taxable income, three
shillings in the pound is to be paid; on the next 75, six shillings in the
pound; for the remainder, the standard rate is nine shillings in the pound.
Stated in terms of American money: the standard British rate is fifteen per
cent on the first $200 of taxable income, thirty per cent on the next $300,
and forty-five per cent beyond that. Income tax surtax is now increased on a
graduated scale. Beginning with January 1, the excess profits tax is to be
reduced from 100 per cent to 60 per cent, and the purchase tax is to be
abolished on some household equipment, for example, heating and cooking
appliances.
Living Costs.
Food Subsidies.
One means that the British Government has adopted to keep down the cost
of living has been the subsidization of foods. In January, the estimated cost
of paying these food subsidies was 218,000,000; three months later the
estimates had been revised upward to 225,000,000. Among the principal
items in the schedule were bread, flour, and oatmeal, 65 million; meat, 24
million; potatoes, 28 million; and eggs, 16 million. A year before, the food

subsidies had cost 205,000,000; when bread, flour, and oatmeal were
figured at 60 million; meat at 23 million; potatoes at 28 million; and eggs
at 11 million.
Exports.
Great Britain, it has been said, must export at least fifty per cent more than
in 1938 if it is to pay its debts. This will require a decided increase over the
value of exports during the war. The figures, including those for Northern
Ireland, are 271,000,000 in 1942; 233,000,000 in 1943; and 258,000,000
in 1944. The exports for 1944, it will be noted, were 25,000,000 over the
amount for 1943, but 13,000,000 short of the 1942 figure. The exports for
the year 1938 were valued at 471,000,000. These figures do not tell the
whole story: the rise in prices has been such that the volume of exports in
1944 was only thirty-one per cent of that for 1938.
Bicycles.
The manner in which British manufacturers are endeavoring to meet the
need of increasing their exports may be illustrated by reference to the
bicycle industry. Before the war, Great Britain produced 2,000,000 bicycles a
year; this output was valued at about 11,500,000 (the 1935 value). In the
year 1938, there were 576,000 bicycles exported, valued at 1,700,000. The
manufacturers' present program is to produce 1,500,000 bicycles, two thirds
of them for export, with a like volume of spare parts. A difficulty that stands
in the way is the shortage of labor: the bicycle industry needs 20,000 men. In
view of the large number of bicycles used in Great Britain itself, 10,000,000
in 1939, the program seems to call for building up the foreign market even at
the cost of the customers at home.
Imports.
Imports in 1944, munitions excluded, were only twenty-one per cent below
the 1938 figure; but with a great increase in costs. The average value of
imports was ninety-one per cent over that of 1938. Retained imports, still
excluding munitions, reached 1,298,836,000 in 1944. The 1943 figure had
been 1,226,554,000. In 1938, British retained imports came to
857,984,000. Total imports, including munitions, came to 2,361,000,000 in
1944, an increase of 476,000,000 over the 1943 total of 1,885,000,000; so
munitions and re-exports were in 1943 658,446,000 and in 1944 they were
1,062,164,000.
Balance of Trade.

In the first six months of 1945, exports amounted to 173,000,000 and

imports to 598,000,000; the adverse balance of 425,000,000 was slightly
reduced by re-exports amounting to 23,000,000. Again, these figures do not
include munitions. Of the imports into Great Britain, more than one half come
from North America (principally the United States) as compared with just
over one-fifth in 1938. British exports to North America in the first six months
of 1945 were 20,800,000 in value, not very far below the 22,000,000 for
the same period in 1938. In July, exports were 32,500,000 and imports were
97,751,000; in August, exports increased to 36,523,000 and imports to
99,289,000. The August export figure was within 3,000,000 of the monthly
average for 1938, but the volume of exports was barely fifty per cent of the
prewar volume.
Employment.
Unemployment was reduced to a minimum by the war. In mid-January, there
were 63,213 men and boys unemployed, 1,056 temporarily laid off or on
short time, and 804 casual laborers out of work; the figures for mid-April
were 61,208, 348, and 752. There were 32,060 women and girls unemployed
in January and 27,761 in April, with 1,539 temporarily laid off in January and
258 in April. There was a relaxation of labor controls at the beginning of June:
men over 50, women over 40, girls and boys under 18, and all part-time
workers doing less than 30 hours a week were freed from direction.
Labor Disputes.
Only two labor disputes of 1945 call for mention. In August, there was a
settlement between the railways and three railway trade unions, providing a
7 shilling weekly increase in minimum adult pay, time and two-thirds for
Sunday work, and up to 12 holidays with pay yearly; the demand for a 40hour week was rejected. A dockers' strike at Liverpool, affecting some 17,000
men, began in October and soon spread to become a national strike. The
dockers demanded 25 shillings a day, a 40 hour week, and extra pay for
overtime, instead of 4.85 ($17.60) for a 44-hour week. They returned to
work on November 5 on a truce during which their claims were to be settled.
Resumption of the strike was threatened when in December the Central
Strike Committee urged the dockers to reject the arbitration committee's
recommendation to increase the pay by only 2 shillings a day.
Rationing.
The end of the war has brought little relief to the British in the way of any
relaxation of rationing. In the middle of May, the restoration of the petrol

(gasoline) ration was promised for a long time there was no gas allotted
for civilian non-essential use; but the amount promised was small enough,
ranging from 4 gallons a month to 7, depending on the car horse-power. So
far as food is concerned and clothing, the British people seem likely to find
the first years of peace harsher and more austere than were the years of
war. Much of this is owing to British willingness to have supplies of which
they are in need go to people who are in yet greater need on the continent.
Municipal Elections.
The municipal elections in November showed that the Labor Party was
trusted by the people in local as well as in national affairs. In 182 large
boroughs, Labor won 2,977 seats, a gain of 1,245, while the Conservatives
lost heavily. These Labor gains were mainly in the North, the Midlands, and in
London; they gave Labor control in 60 or more principal towns in England
and Wales, and 5 more London boroughs; but generally Labor did not win
control of the largest cities, Manchester, Birmingham, and Liverpool, for
example, though in those towns the number of seats held by Labor was
increased.
Government Program for Future.
The Government program calls for bringing the Bank of England under
national ownership, the repeal of the objectionable Trade Disputes Act, a
version of the Beveridge Plan for workmen's compensation, the
nationalization of the coal mines, already accepted in principle by owners
and miners, and a state medical service. In December, it was further
announced that the Government would in time introduce legislation for the
nationalization of gas and electric utilities, railways and other inland
transport, docks and harbors, and iron and steel works. Whatever may be
thought of the wisdom of some of these proposals, and it must be
remembered that British conditions are so different from those in America
that it is questionable whether the average American should express an
opinion on British internal policies, there is no doubt that the men who were
elected last summer to grapple with the problems of the peace are doing so
boldly and courageously.

BRITISH COLONIES

General.

As the year opened, preparations were being made for the United Nations
Conference on International Organization called to meet at San Francisco in
the spring. Included among the provisions suggested for the proposed
Charter were a number dealing with dependent areas. Many students of
colonial affairs, particularly in the United States, felt that the proposed
Charter afforded an excellent opportunity to create a modified mandate, or
trusteeship, system covering the colonies and dependencies of all the
Powers, not merely those of the defeated countries. It was clear, however,
that the United Nations which possessed colonial empires Britain, France,
Holland and Belgium were of no mind to accede to any such suggestion.
The Churchill Government had frequently gone on record as being opposed
to sharing the responsibility for administering Britain's colonies with any
other Power. During the months preceding the San Francisco Conference,
Colonel Oliver Stanley, Secretary of State for Colonies, reaffirmed this policy
quite categorically. At the Conference itself, the British delegation opposed
including in the Charter's section on Trusteeships any general promise of
independence for colonial peoples.
The victory of the British Labor Party in the July elections was expected by
many observers to result in a change of direction and emphasis in British
colonial policy. In the long run this expectation may turn out to have been
justified, but there was little evidence of it during the latter part of 1945.
Indeed, on August 18 the Foreign Office stated that Hong Kong "is a part of
the British Empire and we intend to occupy it just as any other part."
At the same time, it should be pointed out that the British Government was
manifesting an ever-increasing sense of responsibility for the economic wellbeing of its colonial peoples. As Colonel Stanley said in a speech on March
19, "There can be no true self-government without an improved economic
standard and a proper social development." These words were far from idle,
for on January 31, Colonel Stanley had presented to the House of Commons a
bill in which Parliament was asked to appropriate 120,000,000 for
development and research in the colonies during the ten years beginning
April 1, 1946. With this sum the Colonial Office intended to expand the
activities already initiated under the Colonial Development and Welfare Act
of 1940. This work had, in fact, become so important that in January the
Colonial Office announced that Sir Frank Stockdale had been called to fill the
new post of Advisor on Development Planning. He had previously been
Comptroller of Development and Welfare in the British West Indies and Co-

chairman of the Anglo-American Caribbean Commission created in 1942.

The colonial empire was estimated to have contributed some 450,000
soldiers to the British war effort. Up to the end of May, 6,741 of these had
been killed.
Asia.
The surrender of Japan resulted in the liberation of various British territories
in Southeast Asia: Malaya, Sarawak, North Borneo, Hong Kong and others.
(Burma had already been largely freed before the end of hostilities.) The
surrender, coming with unexpected swiftness, caught Admiral Mountbatten's
Command unprepared to occupy Malaya and the other Japanese-held areas
at once. Eventually, however, they were all taken over and the process of
rehabilitation was begun.
Malaya.
In Malaya the rubber plantations were found to be in better shape than had
been generally anticipated. Considerable stocks of raw rubber were also
discovered. By the end of December, some 16,500 tons had been shipped to
England, and more was ready to go. The revival of the tin-mining industry
was slower but was under way by the close of the year. Even before the
Japanese surrender, the British had begun to formulate plans for a new
political set-up in Malaya. Hitherto this area had consisted of three separate
parts: the Straits Settlements (a crown colony), four federated Malay States
and five unfederated ones.
Many observers felt that this anomalous, though typically British,
arrangement should be overhauled in order to insure greater unity in Malaya
and thereby help prepare its peoples to assume a larger share of their own
government. On October 10, the Labor Secretary of State for Colonies, Mr.
George Hall, speaking in the House of Commons, outlined a plan for creating
a Malayan Union consisting of the States and the Straits Settlements, with
Singapore left as a separate colony. Critics of this scheme pointed out that
Britain had treaty relations with the various Malay rulers which had to be
respected and that the mixed racial composition of the population less
than half are Malays would make it extremely difficult to develop a
common set of political interests or traditions.
North Borneo.
The liberation of North Borneo reopened the problem of how long that area
would continue to be under the control of a chartered company. In August, it

was officially announced that the government and the British North Borneo
Company were negotiating a transfer of the colony's administration from the
latter to the former.
Burma.
A brighter political future was also promised to Burma, where civil
government was restored in October. Upon this occasion King George, in a
communication to the governor of Burma, stated that "Burma shall at the
earliest possible moment attain complete self-government as a member of
the British Commonwealth." He declared that later on there would be
elections for a House of Representatives with a responsible ministry and a
new constitution.
Ceylon.
Ceylon also experienced constitutional growing pains during the year. In
January, there arrived a commission, headed by Lord Soulbury, which had
been sent out to investigate the possibility of confering more selfgovernment on the island. Its sessions ran from January 22 to March 13,
during which time much testimony was taken despite a virtual boycott by the
Ceylon State Council. In Ceylon, as in India, the constitutional problem is
complicated by the presence of various self-contained religious and racial
communities. On the State Council a Sinhalese majority prevailed, and in the
spring this body passed a bill providing for Dominion status which the
British Government had already refused to grant.
On October 9, the report of the Soulbury Commission was released. It
proposed certain steps for getting the island ready for Dominion status
through the practice of wide self-government. However, the minorities
attacked it as not insuring them adequate protection. On October 31, the
British Government announced that a constitution along the lines of the
Soulbury report would be conferred as an interim step. The Ceylon State
Council accepted this proposal by a vote of 51 to 3 on November 9.
Singapore.
September 5, at 11:30 A.M., British and Indian troops went ashore. They
found the city undamaged except for the docks. (American Indiabased
Superforts sank the great King George V dock on February 1.) A British
Military Administration was set up, and the Japanese were put to work on the
waterfront. It was found that the Japanese had cultivated the Malays, and
persecuted the Chinese.

Surrender of Japanese.
A considerable naval force, headed by HMS Nelson, arrived on September 10,
and on the 12th Itagaki made formal surrender to Mountbatten of all enemy
forces in Southeast Asia. Present as witnesses were Allied representatives,
the Sultan of Johore, the Maharajah of Cooch-Behar, the Bishop of Singapore,
representatives of the Chinese community and former POW.
Singapore was specifically omitted from a proposal by the Colonial Secretary,
October 10, for a Malayan Union and establishment of Malay citizenship. The
question of ultimate union of Singapore with the state would be decided
later.
Education.
The report of the Asquith Commission, July 19, on higher education in the
colonies, stating that a good university was an inescapable corollary of selfgovernment, proposed the creation of a University of Malaya based on the
King Edward VII Medical College and Raffles College. Until its degrees
acquired reputation, preparation would be for a degree from the University of
London.
A sequel to the defeat of 1942 was the inquiry begun in Australia in
November into the ethics of the escape of Lt. General H. Gordon Bennett on
February 15 and 16, 1942.
West Indies.
Finally, in the fall of 1945, and after its contents could no longer be distorted
by Nazi propaganda, the British Government published the report of the
Royal Commission which investigated West Indian conditions just before the
war. The Commission's recommendations had been made public in February,
1940, and had been instrumental in getting Parliament to vote the Colonial
Development and Welfare Act of that same year. The Commission's Report,
with its wealth of information on the islands' economic and social problems,
was a landmark in British colonial policy.
In order to carry out the terms of the 1940 Act, there had been created the
office of Comptroller of the West Indies Development and Welfare
Department, occupied by Sir Frank Stockdale. Up to July, 1945, grants of
21,500,000 had been made to various colonies for development and
welfare, of which one-third went to the West Indies. This represented 291 out
of the 497 schemes approved for the whole empire.

Anglo-American Caribbean Commission.

The size of the Anglo-American Caribbean Commission was altered during
the year by adding one more member for each side, thus increasing each
delegation from three to four. The new American seat was filled by Mr. Ralph
Bunche, a Negro who was currently serving as Associate Chief of the Division
of Dependent Area Affairs in the State Department. The British delegation
was to be reshuffled so as to include two non-official West Indian members.
Political Federation Proposed.
One of the recommendations of the Royal Commission had been that political
federation should be one of the objectives of British policy in the West Indies.
Colonel Stanley disclosed in June that he had circulated a dispatch among
the governors of Britain's eight Caribbean colonies in which he stated that
the Government favored the development of federation only if there were a
popular demand for it from within the colonies themselves. He was opposed
to any attempt to force it on the West Indian peoples against their will. The
ultimate aim of such federation would be, he declared, full self-government
within the British Commonwealth. He suggested the possibility that perhaps
two federations, one for the eastern and one for the western group, might be
preferable, and that the Bahama Islands might choose to remain outside of
either one. Indeed, on July 3, the Bahamas House of Assembly unanimously
rejected the federation proposed. Elsewhere in the West Indies federation
met with greater approval.
Caribbean Labor Conference.
In September, a Caribbean Labor Conference met in Barbados and adopted a
draft constitution for a new organization to be called the Caribbean Labor
Congress and to include representatives of trade unions, cooperative
societies and Socialist political bodies in the colonies. The Conference came
out strongly for federation and for a number of economic and social reform
measures, including the establishment of a West Indian university. This latter
suggestion had the express support of the Secretary of State for Colonies in
the Labor Government. It was generally agreed that Jamaica, the most
populous of the colonies, should be the seat of such an institution.
Jamaica.
In Jamaica, the new liberalized constitution of 1944 was on trial. As Colonel
Stanley remarked in Kingston early in January, it was an experiment which
might affect the future of all colonial peoples. In April, the Jamaican
Government released a report on economic conditions prepared by a special

committee chosen to investigate the problem. While recommending various

social security measures, it also emphasized the importance of increasing
production through harder and more efficient work. Another committee,
reporting late in the summer, made a number of suggestions for improving
Jamaican agriculture, including the establishment of an island Land Authority.
Some idea of the wretched living conditions of the great mass of Jamaicans
was given by census figures showing that nearly half of the island's 322,000
dwellings were classified as bad. For example, only 10 per cent had water
closets, 18 per cent were without any toilet facilities at all, and less than onehalf of one per cent had inside washing facilities.
Bahamas.
The Duke of Windsor resigned as Governor and Commander-in-Chief in the
Bahamas, it was officially stated in a Colonial Office announcement on March
15. Thus came to an end his nearly five-year tenure of office. Later in the
same month, he expounded to the Nassau Chamber of Commerce a
fourpoint program for the economic and social rehabilitation of the islands.
West Africa.
Some 200,000 men from British West Africa served in Britain's armed forces
during the war, many of them in the Burma campaign of 1945. The West
African colonies also played a vital part in Allied strategy by providing sites
for airfields, new roads, improved railway facilities, and antimalaria drainage
projects to protect the health of the Allied forces serving along the transAfrican air route to the Middle East and India.
West African Council.
As a means of carrying on the coordination among the four colonies which
had been developed during the war, the Secretary of State for Colonies, Mr.
George Hall, stated in October that a West African Council was to be set up
consisting of the four colonial governors and with its seat in the Gold Coast.
Presumably a more rapid and productive economic development of the West
African colonies would be one of the objectives of this Council. In Nigeria, it
was planned to spend 40,000,000 on general development work during the
next ten years, with lesser sums earmarked for the smaller colonies. In an
article in the London Times for October 31, Lord Balfour, former Resident
Minister in West Africa, drew attention to the imminent danger that Nigeria
would lose its market for palm oil and kernels to Malaya, Dutch East Indies
and the Belgian Congo, unless its growers improved the quality of their
product.

Nigeria.
A White Paper containing proposals for revising and liberalizing the
constitution of Nigeria was published on March 5. The unofficial (i.e., native)
members of the Nigerian Legislative Council expressed general approval of
the proposals in a debate that took place on the 23rd.
Cocoa.
Approximately one-half of the world's supply of cocoa comes from British
West Africa, notably the Gold Coast. Early in the year, American cocoa
importers protested against the British Government's announced intention to
control the prices and marketing of the West African crop. This policy was
later scrapped by the Churchill Cabinet. However, considerable anxiety was
felt after the Labor victory in July that the new Cabinet would nationalize the
cocoa industry. In mid-September, a report from Accra stated that the
imperial government was going to buy the 1945-46 crop through the West
African Produce Control Board at an increased price. In November, American
importers were complaining about the way the British authorities were
holding up cocoa shipments from West Africa.
East Africa.
East African troops distinguished themselves in the Ethiopian, Mediterranean
and Burma campaigns. But with the end of hostilities, the problem of how to
reintegrate these men into their African communities was causing
considerable anxiety in colonial circles. In East Africa, tribal life has been
breaking down without there being offered to the natives any satisfactory
alternative. In southern and central Africa, the Bantu who have become
dissatisfied with tribal life can go into industrial work in the cities or into the
mines. There is no such outlet in East Africa and some observers feared that
the stress of postwar readjustments might jeopardize the functioning of
indirect rule. In a few cases native Africans had been able to utilize their war
experience to learn trades and to aspire to becoming artisans and
shopkeepers aspirations which caused much anxiety among the Indian
population who had hitherto largely monopolized these occupations.
Kenya.
In Kenya, a scheme for decentralizing the administration was published
during the summer, and met with an acceptance "in principle" from the
Legislative Council of that colony. However, the Indians opposed it as being

inadequate, and both the natives and Arabs expressed disappointment at not
being given larger representations. The scheme did not alter fundamentally
the set-up under which Kenya has been controlled by its very small European
minority.
Uganda.
Early in 1945 there were riots and a general strike in Uganda, which were put
down with speed and energy by the British authorities. On September 5,
"Prime Minister" Martin Luther Nsibirwa of the Buganda Kingdom was
assassinated just outside the Cathedral at Kampala. On October 2, Sir John
Hathorn Hall, the Governor of Uganda, swore in three regents who were to
serve while the young Kabaka (king) was studying in Cambridge. He took this
occasion to say that the assassination of the Prime Minister had cast a slur
on all Buganda since it was not just the work of one man but of a number of
traitors and self-seekers. Later in the month the Colonial Office announced a
new departure by appointing three native Africans to the Protectorate
Legislative Council for Uganda.
For a number of years many of the European inhabitants of East Africa have
been desirous of political amalgamation or the "closer union" of Kenya,
Uganda and Tanganyika. They were therefore disappointed when MajorGeneral Sir Philip Mitchell, Governor of Kenya, declared on November 6 that
his recent discussions in London had not included this suggestion and that he
did not believe it could be considered "practical politics today." He also
reported that there were many applications from members of the British
armed forces who wished to settle in Kenya, and that the London authorities
had recently approved the admission of an additional 500 new farmers to the
Kenya highlands.
Central Africa.
Central African Council.
In British Central Africa, progress towards amalgamation was made early in
April when the Colonial Office announced the creation of a Standing Central
African Council. The chairman of this body was to be the Governor of
Southern Rhodesia, with the Governors of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland
and the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia serving as ex-officio members.
In addition, the three latter officials were to appoint three members each to
serve two-year terms. The first meeting of this Council took place at
Salisbury on April 24. The Chairman, Sir Campbell Tait, asserted that, while
the government of Southern Rhodesia favored the amalgamation of the three

territories, the authorities in London believed that such a step was not
practicable for the moment. The Council, he added, should not be regarded
as the halfway house to amalgamation, though it could provide a foundation
on which the fullest cooperation between the three territories could later be
built.
Southern Rhodesia.
In Southern Rhodesia, the gold mining industry reported that its production
was handicapped by high taxes and labor scarcity. In April, Mr. Danziger, the
Minister of Finance, announced that the gold premium tax would be lifted in
order to help the industry mine lower grade ore. The authorities at Salisbury
also expressed concern at the attempt by the United States to persuade
Britain to reduce the imperial preference on tobacco, since this product stood
second in value among Southern Rhodesia's exports. Otherwise the picture
for the colony's agriculture and stock-raising was bright. Earlier in the
summer, a commission which had been appointed in April, 1944, to
investigate native affairs, reported that it had found a widespread lack of
leadership among the natives. It therefore suggested measures for bolstering
the authority and prestige of the chiefs and thus curbing "indiscipline."
Northern Rhodesia.
In Northern Rhodesia, the first session of the Legislative Council, with an
unofficial majority, met during the summer. On at least one occasion this
majority defeated a government proposal concerning war pensions by a vote
of 12 to 8. Even so, representatives of the small European population in the
colony expressed disappointment at not being accorded greater selfgovernment. One member even urged that Northern Rhodesia have a
representative in the House of Commons in London, comparable to the
colonial representation in the French Parliament at Paris.
Nyasaland.
In Nyasaland, an African Provincial Council was set up in each of the two
provinces composed of chiefs and other responsible African members. Its
function was to facilitate consultation by the colonial authorities and to give
expression to African opinion. A grant of 345,000 under the Colonial
Development and Welfare Act was made in order to provide for a five-year
plan of educational expansion in the colony. Other local funds were also set
aside for the social and economic development of the native population. The
July report of the British Central Africa Company showed that the colony's

tobacco, tea, soybean and sisal crops were all becoming increasingly
productive.
Seeds of Globalization

The term "globalization" refers to the increasing interconnectedness of

nations and peoples around the world through trade, investment, travel,
popular culture, and other forms of interaction. Many historians have
identified globalization as a 20th-century phenomenon connected to the rise
of the Western-dominated international economy. However, extensive
interaction between widespread peoples, as well as travel over vast
distances across regions of the world, has existed for many centuries. By
1000, the seeds of globalization had already taken root in the eastern
hemisphere, particularly in the lands bordering the Indian Ocean and South
China Sea. These were the most dynamic regions in the world at that time,
and their interactions were extensive.
To understand how globalization first took root between 1000 and 1500, one
must focus on contact between distant peoples in Asia, especially contact
carried on through long-distance trade. Interregional trade has been a major
force throughout world history because it fosters other forms of exchange,
including the spread of religions, cultures, and technologies. For many
centuries, the most outstanding example of overland interaction was the Silk
Road, a trade route through Central Asia. Maritime trade flourished as well;
the Indian Ocean became the heart of the most extensive seagoing trade
network in the premodern world. Islamic merchants dominated this network,
spreading their religion far and wide. Islamic expansion established a huge
cultural region that stretched across the entire eastern hemisphere.
Trading ports such as Melaka in Malaya became vibrant, globalized centers of
international commerce and culture. Chinese ships would later follow this
trading network in undertaking the greatest oceanic explorations in world
history to that point. This exploration confirmed the crucial role played by
this Afro-Eurasian maritime commerce and the dynamism of some Asian
civilizations. The exchanges across Asia at this time, including the spread of
Islam, were significant enough that we can speak of a globalized economy
and culture.
Trade and Interregional Contact

One characteristic of globalization in the modern age has been expanding

commerce between countries around the world. The roots of this
phenomenon reach far back in history. Long-distance trade routes grew out
of the transportation systems that developed out of the need to move
resources by land and sea. In turn, trade and expansion led to increased
contact between different civilizations and societies. This contact enabled
Indian influence, including that of Buddhism, to spread over the land and sea
trading routes into Central Asia, Tibet, China, Japan, and Southeast Asia
between 200 BC and AD 1500.
From around 200 BC to around AD 1000, the most significant example of
interaction and long-distance trade was the Silk Road, which stretched across
central and southwest Asia, linking China to India, western Asia, and the
Mediterranean. Along the Silk Road, goods, people, and ideas traveled
thousands of miles between China, India, and Europe. Silk, porcelain, and
bamboo from China were carried west across the deserts, mountains, and
grasslands to Baghdad and the eastern Mediterranean ports, and then
shipped by sea to Rome.
The maritime system established on the Indian Ocean grew more important
between 1000 and 1500, eventually surpassing overland trade. The oceanic
routes between Southeast Asia and the Middle East greatly expanded.
Traders from Arabia, Persia, and India visited the East African coast, and
many Asians and Africans enjoyed a long period of lucrative and relatively
free seagoing trade.
The Silk Road and the Mongol Empire
Between 1250 and 1350, the Mongols established and controlled the largest
land empire in world history. This empire stretched from Korea to Vienna,
placing a huge bloc of the world's population under Mongol control. The
Mongols brutally conquered Siberia, Tibet, Korea, Russia, much of Eastern
Europe, Afghanistan, Persia, Turkey, and parts of Arab civilization in the
Middle East. Western Europeans were too remote and underdeveloped to
give reason for conquest and thus did not suffer the ravages experienced by
other peoples. In 1279, China, a more formidable foe and tempting prize
than Western Europe, was added to the Mongol-ruled realm.
One cannot underestimate the importance of the Mongol era to world history
or its role in establishing an early form of globalization. In the 20th century,
globalization enabled Western technology to reach other parts of the world.

Some historians consider the Mongols the great equalizers of history because
during their rule, they permitted the transfer of technology from the more
developed East Asia to the more backward Western Europe. They did this by
reopening and protecting the Silk Road, however briefly. During the Mongol
era, Chinese inventions such as gunpowder, printing, the blast furnace, silk
machinery, paper money, and playing cards found their way to Europe, as
did many medical discoveries and such domesticated fruits as the orange
and lemon. The Mongols paved the way for greater global communication,
opening China's doors to the world. One Chinese monk, a Nestorian
Christian, became the first eastern Asian visitor to Rome, England, and
France. In addition, some Chinese people settled in Persia, Iraq, and Russia.
This movement was possible because travel from one end of Eurasia to the
other was easier than ever before.
Furthermore, the Mongols unwittingly set in motion changes that would later
allow Europe to catch up with and eventually surpass China. Some of these
changes were based on European improvement of such Chinese inventions
as printing, gunpowder, the stern-post rudder, and the magnetic compass.
For example, in about 1050, the Chinese invented movable type. The
Europeans later developed a better technology, and in the 1450s Johannes
Gutenberg used movable type to produce multiple printings of the Bible.
Likewise, the Chinese invented the first flamethrower. By the 13th century
the flamethrower had evolved into a primitive gunone major reason the
Mongols took so much longer to conquer China than other civilizations. As
these weapons were transported to Europe during the Mongol Era, and then
improved, late medieval European warfare became far deadlier than it had
been before.
Today's globalized world has been characterized by a brain drain, or exodus
of talented people from various continents to Europe and North America. The
world in the 14th century witnessed the same phenomenon; however, the
flow moved the other way, from west to east. In China, the Mongol
administration relied on a large number of foreigners who came to serve in
what was effectively an international civil service. These included many
Muslims from West and Central Asia as well as a few Europeans who found
themselves drawn to the fabled Cathay, as they called it. One such person
was the Italian traveler and author, Marco Polo. Polo claimed to have spent
seventeen years in China, mostly in government service. Eventually he
returned home to tell unbelieving Europeans of the wonders he encountered
or heard about from other travelers. Polos reports seemed incredible

because at that time China was well ahead of other Eurasian civilizations in
many fields.
For these reasons, the Mongol Empire was one of the most important land
empires in history. Yet in spite of the success of Mongol civilization during the
1200s, their empire would prove short-lived. Unlike other empires, the
Mongols never took advantage of the maritime commerce developing at the
time.
The Globalization of Islam and the Indian Ocean Maritime Trade System
Between the 8th and 15th centuries, Islam ventured out of its Arabian
heartland in the Middle East to become the dominant religion in many parts
of Africa and Asia and in Iberia. Muslim groups emerged in such different and
geographically distant locations as China and the Balkans. In the process, an
interlinked Islamic world called dar al-Islam (the Abode of Islam) emerged, a
world that was joined by both a common faith and trade connections. The
dar al-Islam stretched from Morocco to Indonesia.
This global Islamization spread Arab names, words, alphabet, architecture,
social attitudes, and cultural values to peoples around the world. The great
14th-century Moroccan traveler Ibn Batttah spent decades touring the
extensive dar al-Islam. He traveled from Mali in Africa and Spain in the west
to Southeast Asia and the coastal ports of China in the east. Whereas the
Christian Marco Polo was always a stranger in his travels, everywhere Ibn
Batttah went, he encountered people who shared his general worldview and
social values.
Muslim-dominated trade routes, which ultimately reached from the Sahara to
Spain to the South China Sea, fostered travel. The key to their success was a
more complex and increasingly integrated maritime trade throughout the
Indian Ocean. This trade network linked China, Japan, Vietnam, and
Cambodia in the east through Malaya and the Indonesian archipelago. From
there it crossed into India and Sri Lanka, and then moved westward to Persia,
Arabia, the East African coast as far south as Mozambique, and the eastern
Mediterranean, finally connecting to Venice and Genoa.
The Strait of Hormuz on the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Melaka in
Southeast Asia were the major pillars of what became the most important
mercantile system of the premodern world. It was through this mercantile
system that the spices of Indonesia and East Africa; the gold and tin of

Malaya; the batik and carpets of Java; the textiles of India; the gold of
Zimbabwe; and the silks, porcelain, and tea of China made their way to
distant markets. When many of these products reached Europe, people there
yearned to find their sources in the East, sparking the European age of
exploration. Maritime trade flourished, especially in the 14th century after
the Mongol empire ended and the spread of the Black Death, the bubonic
plague, throughout Eurasia disrupted overland trade. The maritime network
reached its height in the 1400s and 1500s, when Muslim political power was
reduced but its economic and cultural power remained strong.
Islam and the Rise of Melaka
Various states around the Indian Ocean and South China Sea were closely
linked to maritime trade. For example, East African city-states such as
Mombasa and Kilwa, with their mixed African-Arab Swahili culture, thrived for
many centuries. Merchants in India, including many Jews and Arabs,
maintained close ties to Western Asia, North and East Africa, Southeast Asia
and China. No political power was dominant along the maritime trading
route. Its vigor depended on cosmopolitan port cities such as Hormuz on the
Persian coast, Cambay in northwest India, Calicut on India's southwest coast,
and Melaka near the southern tip of Malaya. Of all the cities, historians
probably know the most about Melaka, and this city well illustrates
premodern patterns of globalization. Southeast Asia had long been a
cosmopolitan region where peoples, ideas, and products met. Some rulers of
coastal states in the Malay Peninsula and Indonesian archipelago, anxious to
attract the Muslim traders who dominated interregional maritime commerce
and attracted by the universality of Islam, adopted the faith.
The arrival of Islam in Southeast Asia coincided with the rise of Melaka, which
became the region's political and economic power. Melaka became the main
base for the expansion of Islam in the archipelago, as well as the last stop on
the eastern end of the Indian Ocean trading network. Melaka's pivotal role in
world trade was confirmed by an early 16th-century Portuguese visitor, who
wrote that it had "no equal in the world" and proclaimed its importance to
peoples and trade patterns as far away as Western Europe. "Melaka is a city
that was made for merchandise, fitter than any other in the world he
wrote. Commerce between different nations for a thousand leagues on
every hand must come to Melaka. Whoever is lord of Melaka has his hands
on the throat of Venice."
During the 1400s, Melaka was a flourishing trading port attracting merchants

from many lands in Asia and Africa. More ships dropped anchor in Melakas
harbor than in any other port in the world; seagoing merchants were
attracted by its stable government and free trade policy. Among Melaka's
population of 100,000 to 200,000 people were about 15,000 foreign traders,
among them Arabs, Egyptians, Persians, Turks, Jews, Armenians, Ethiopians,
East Africans, Burmese, Vietnamese, Javanese, Filipinos, Chinese, Japanese,
and Indians from all over the subcontinent. On the city's streets, some 84
languages were spoken.
Melaka had a special connection to the Gujerati port of Cambay, which was
nearly 3,000 miles away, because merchants from Gujerat in northwest India
were Melakas most influential foreign community. Every year trading ships
from around the Middle East and South Asia would gather at Cambay and
Calicut to make the long voyage to Melaka. The ships carried grain, woolens,
arms, copperware, textiles, and opium for exchange. Melaka had become
one of the major trading cities in the world, a multiethnic center of globalized
culture and commerce, much like New York, Los Angeles, or Hong Kong are
today.
Ming China and the World
The extent of globalization by the early 15th century is suggested by the
great Chinese voyages of discovery. The emperor of the Ming dynasty, Yonglo
(or Yung-lo), dispatched a series of grand maritime expeditions to southern
Asia and beyond, expeditions that were the greatest the world had ever
seen. Admiral Zheng He (or Cheng Ho), a Muslim whose father had visited
Arabia, commanded seven voyages between 1405 and 1433. These voyages
were huge undertakings, with the largest fleet including 62 vessels carrying
nearly 28,000 men. (By contrast, a few decades later, Christopher Columbus
would sail forth from Spain in three small vessels crewed by a hundred men.)
The massive Chinese junks were far superior to any other ships of the time.
In fact, the world had never before seen such a large-scale feat of
seamanship.
During these extraordinary voyages, ships carrying the Chinese flag followed
the maritime trade routes through Southeast Asia to India, the Persian Gulf
and Red Sea, Arabia, and down the East African coast as far as Kilwa in
Tanzania. Melaka became their southern base, and Melakas rulers made
occasional trips to China to cement the alliance. Had the Chinese ships
continued, they would have had the capability of sailing around Africa to
Europe; however, Europe offered few products the Chinese valued. The

Chinese expeditions expressed the exuberance of an era of great vitality.

Although the Chinese traveled mostly in peace and fought only a few military
actions, some 36 countries, including a few in western Asia, acknowledged
allegiance to China. In this period, China was the greatest power in a
globalizing hemisphere.
Historians still debate the reasons for Zheng He's great voyages. Some see
diplomacy as the primary goal, with the recognition by so many foreign
countries reaffirming the emperor's position. Others point to commercial
motives, since the voyages came at the time Chinese merchants were
becoming more active in Southeast Asia. In the early Ming period, China
remained the most advanced civilization in the world. Commercially vibrant
and outward-looking, Ming China could have opened greater communication
between the continents and become the dominant world power well beyond
eastern Asia. However, it never did. The grand voyages to the west and the
commercial thrust in Southeast Asia came to a sudden halt when the Ming
emperor ordered a return to isolationism and recalled all Chinese people
living outside the empire.
How can we account for this stunning reversal that, in the perspective of
later history, seemed so counterproductive? Perhaps the voyages were too
expensive even for the wealthy Ming government. The voyages were not
cost-effective because the ships returned chiefly with exotic goods, such as
African giraffes for the imperial zoo, rather than mineral resources and other
valuable items. It seems that the full possibilities of globalization were not
apparent to Chinese leaders. Furthermore, in the Chinese social system,
merchants lacked status. And unlike Christian Europe, China had little
interest in spreading its religion and culture. The Mongols were regrouping in
Central Asia, and the Ming court was forced to shift its resources to defend
the northern borders. As a result, the oceans were left open to the Western
Europeans, who improved upon Chinese and Arab naval and military
technology and soon challenged Arabs, Indians, and Southeast Asians for
supremacy in the Indian Ocean trading system.
The End of the First Globalized System
By the end of the 1400s, the reputation of such cities as Melaka, Canton,
Calicut, and Hormuz as treasure troves of Asian luxuries had reached Europe.
Anxious to gain direct access to Asian trade, the Portuguese finally made
their way to India in 1498 and Melaka in 1509, inaugurating a new era of
European activity in Asian history. Indeed, the Portuguese seized Melaka in

1511. Despite Portugals superiority in ships and weaponry, its standard of

living was probably inferior to that of people in the more developed societies
of Asia. This no doubt contributed to the tendency of Europeans to use
armed force to obtain their commercial and political goals. This tendency
ensured that the globalization of the world over the next five centuries would
be under the auspices of Western Christians rather than the Muslims,
Indians, and Chinese who established the basic framework between 1000
and 1500.
About the author: Craig Lockard is the Ben and Joyce Rosenberg Professor of
History in the Department of Social Change and Development at the
University of Wisconsin-Green Bay. He is the author of "Dance of Life":
Popular Music and Politics in Modern Southeast Asia.
Nuclear Weapons Proliferation

I -INTRODUCTION
Nuclear Weapons Proliferation, the spread of nuclear weapons to countries or
terrorist organizations that formerly did not possess them. Many observers
believe that the problem of nuclear weapons proliferation is likely to be one
of the most important issues facing the United States and the world for many
years to come. The 1968 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons
(NPT) attempted to address the problem, but the number of countries
possessing nuclear weapons has grown since the treaty went into effect.
II -WHO POSSESSES NUCLEAR WEAPONS?
Nuclear weapons were first developed by the United States during World War
II (1939-1945) as a result of a massive, secret program known as the
Manhattan Project. The United States tested the first nuclear weapon in July
1945 at Alamogordo in the New Mexico desert, and then used two nuclear
weapons against the Japanese cities of Hiroshima (August 6, 1945) and
Nagasaki (August 9, 1945). These are the only times nuclear explosives have
been used as a weapon, although there have been more than 2,000 nuclear
weapon tests and more than 100 experiments using nuclear explosives for
peaceful purposes, such as excavation.
Today, the United States and seven other countries have openly declared
that they possess nuclear weapons and have conducted one or more nuclear
test explosions to demonstrate this capability. The countries and the dates of
their first nuclear test are: Russia (first test conducted by the former Union of

Soviet Socialist Republics, 1949); Britain (1952); France (1960); China (1964);
India (peaceful nuclear explosion, 1974; nuclear weapons test, 1998);
Pakistan (1998); and North Korea (2006). Israel is generally believed to
possess nuclear weapons, although it has not acknowledged this and is not
known to have conducted a nuclear test. Including Israel, the total number of
countries generally recognized as possessing nuclear weapons is nine.
A tenth country, South Africa, has also admitted that it developed a small
arsenal of nuclear weapons (first weapon completed, 1977), but it
dismantled this arsenal in the early 1990s. When the Soviet Union broke
apart in 1991, 3 of the 15 newly independent countries, in addition to Russia,
had nuclear weapons on their territory. By the mid-1990s, the three countries
Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Ukrainehad transferred all of these nuclear
weapons to Russia. Virtually all countries of the worldother than the nine
nations believed to possess nuclear weapons todayhave formally pledged
not to manufacture them. This pledge was made under the 1968 Treaty on
the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), which entered into force in
1970. The treaty has been ratified by 187 nonnuclear weapon states. Many
nations have expressed concern, however, that one such party to the treaty,
Iran, may be actively seeking to develop such weapons.
No terrorist organizations possess nuclear weapons. Al-Qaeda is known to
desire them, however, and a Japanese cult, the Aum Shinrikyo, began an
effort to develop them in the late 1980s, but was unsuccessful.
III -HOW ARE NUCLEAR WEAPONS MADE?
The nuclear weapons that the United States developed through the
Manhattan Project are known as atomic or fission weapons because they
obtain their energy from the splitting (or fissioning) of certain highly unstable
atoms. Two materials have been used as the core of fission weapons: highly
enriched uranium and plutonium. Highly enriched uranium is uranium in
which one type of unstable uranium atom, an isotope known as uranium 235
or U-235, has been artificially concentrated. In naturally occurring uranium,
U-235 makes up only 0.7 percent of a typical uranium sample, but in fission
weapons U-235 is concentrated to much higher levels. Concentrations of
more than 90 percent U-235 are considered best for fission weapons, but
lower concentrations can also be used. The IAEA and virtually all countries,
including the United States, treat uranium enriched to more than 20 percent
U-235 as potentially usable for weapons. Material enriched above this level is
known as highly enriched uranium and is protected by special security

measures. The process of increasing the concentration of U-235 is performed

in a facility known as a uranium enrichment plant.
Irradiating uranium fuel in a nuclear reactor produces plutonium. During the
reactors operation some uranium atoms absorb an atomic particle known as
a neutron, ultimately creating a new element, plutonium. Roughly 1 percent
of uranium atoms are transformed into plutonium by this means. The
irradiated uranium material is then removed from the reactor in the form of
spent fuel rods, and chemical processes extract the plutonium from them
in a facility known as a reprocessing plant.
To cause a nuclear explosion, the highly enriched uranium or plutonium must
be compressed by means of conventional high explosives. The compression
causes the nuclear materials to become more dense so as to achieve a
supercritical mass that leads to an uncontrolled chain reaction. A nuclear
explosion is an uncontrolled chain reaction, whereas the energy generated
by a nuclear power plant is a controlled chain reaction. Highly enriched
uranium can be detonated by means of a relatively simple, gun-type
device, in which one quantity of highly enriched uranium is fired into another
within a gun-barrel-like cylinder, thereby achieving the necessary
supercritical mass. Plutonium must be compressed much more rapidly than
highly enriched uranium, however, because plutonium spontaneously emits
neutrons that can interfere with the chain reaction that produces the
explosion. To detonate plutonium, a much more complicated implosion-type
design is required, in which a hollow plutonium sphere is crushed inward with
great precision by a series of shaped, high-explosive charges, known as
lenses, that surround the plutonium and are detonated at exactly the same
moment.
During the Manhattan Project, the United States simultaneously pursued
several means for enriching uranium and also produced plutonium. The
Manhattan Project scientists had such confidence in the gun-type design that
the highly enriched uranium bomb was not tested before it was used against
Hiroshima. The scientists were less sure about the more complex implosion
design for the Nagasaki bomb, however, and this was the design tested at
Alamogordo. Today, nuclear weapons inspectors with the IAEA assume that
25 kg (55 lb) of highly enriched uranium or 8 kg (18 lb) of plutonium would
be sufficient to manufacture a nuclear weapon. However, depending on the
design of the weapon, considerably less could be used. According to some
estimates, it is theoretically possible to develop a nuclear weapon with less

than 8 kg of plutonium.
In the late 1940s the United States began to develop a far more potent type
of nuclear armament, known as thermonuclear weapons, or the hydrogen
bomb. These bombs use small fission weapons to create extreme conditions
that cause certain types of hydrogen atoms (deuterium and tritium) to fuse
together, releasing vast quantities of explosive energy. Some thermonuclear
weapons release the equivalent of millions of tons of TNT.
Only five of the states possessing nuclear weapons are known to have
developed thermonuclear arms: the United States (first test 1952), Russia
(1953), Britain (1957), China (1967), and France (1968). Developing these
weapons requires extensive nuclear test detonations. The other, more recent
nuclear states have conducted very few (and in some cases no) nuclear tests
to avoid calling attention to their nuclear weapon programs, which are often
the subject of international criticism. This has slowed their development of
thermonuclear weapons.
IV -HOW EASY IS IT TO MAKE THE BOMB?
The most difficult challenge for a country that seeks to build nuclear
weapons is obtaining the necessary highly enriched uranium or plutonium. In
addition to access to uranium supplies, this requires considerable industrial
and scientific capabilities. Even less developed countries, however, such as
China, India, North Korea, and Pakistan, have succeeded by concentrating
their resources on this effort and, in most cases, by obtaining help from
governments or individuals in more advanced countries. For example,
Chinas nuclear weapon program benefited from early assistance provided by
the Soviet Union. Indias program took advantage of Canadian and U.S.
assistance provided for peaceful nuclear research, and Pakistans program
relied on assistance from China, along with technology and equipment
secretly obtained from Western European supplier companies. Without such
assistance, nuclear weapon programs in these states would have been
greatly delayed and might not have succeeded.
A -Enriched Uranium Bombs
Uranium can be enriched using several techniques. The United States
nuclear weapons program has relied on the gaseous diffusion method,
invented during the Manhattan Project, in which uranium is transformed into
a gas (uranium hexafluoride) and pumped through membranes that permit
U-235 atoms to pass through slightly more often than other uranium atoms.
By repeating this process through many cycles, concentrations of U-235 can

be increased to the level needed for nuclear weapons. Britain, France, and
China also have relied exclusively on the gaseous diffusion method to
produce highly enriched uranium for nuclear weapons. The Soviet Union did
so for many years before shifting to the gas centrifuge method.
The gaseous diffusion method uses great quantities of energy. Indeed, during
the Manhattan Project, the United States built a hydroelectric dam, under the
Tennessee Valley Authority, solely to power the gaseous diffusion enrichment
facility at Oak Ridge, Tennessee. A country seeking to develop nuclear
weapons secretly would find it difficult to do so using this method today
because the energy requirements would be nearly impossible to hide.
Uranium enrichment using high-speed gas centrifuges is far more efficient
than gaseous diffusion. In the gas centrifuge process, uranium is also first
converted to gaseous uranium hexafluoride. It is then introduced into the
centrifugesrapidly spinning vertical cylinderswhere it is swirled at great
speed. Under the centrifugal forces created, the bulk of uranium atoms,
which are heavier than U-235 atoms, move toward the outside of the
centrifuge, allowing product slightly concentrated in U-235 to remain at the
center and be drawn off. By linking the gas centrifuges together in what is
known as a cascade, this process is then repeated until weapons-usable
material is created. Pakistan relies on this method of enrichment for
producing highly enriched uranium for nuclear weapons. It is also used in
India and, possibly, North Korea. Iran has also built a centrifuge uranium
enrichment facility, which it states is intended for its peaceful nuclear energy
program.
Other enrichment techniques are the jet nozzle process, used by South
Africa, and the electromagnetic isotope separation process, which Iraq used
in its unsuccessful effort to enrich uranium before the 1991 Persian Gulf War.
Lasers can also be used to enrich uranium, although to date no country is
known to have employed this method for the development of nuclear
weapons. In this method, known as laser isotope separation, uranium is
transformed into a metal, vaporized, and then targeted with specialized
lasers that excite U-235 atoms differently from other uranium atoms,
permitting a concentrated product to be collected. The process is considered
very difficult technically, but it can be conducted in small-scale facilities that
can evade detection by the IAEA or foreign intelligence agencies. In 2004
South Korea acknowledged that in 2000 it had conducted secret laser
enrichment experiments, creating a tiny amount of very highly enriched
uranium. Because it is very hard to detect and can be extremely efficient,

the laser enrichment method could pose a significant proliferation risk in the
future.
B -Plutonium Bombs
The technology to produce plutonium is technically simpler than that needed
to enrich uranium. Nonetheless, plutonium production requires the
construction of a series of expensive and relatively complex facilities,
including a nuclear research, nuclear power, or plutonium-production reactor;
a plant for the manufacture of uranium fuel or targets; and a reprocessing
plant. The United States, the Soviet Union (now Russia), Britain, France, and
China all produced plutonium for their nuclear weapons programs, in addition
to highly enriched uranium. Plutonium is the principal nuclear weapon
material used in the Indian, North Korean, and presumed Israeli nuclear
weapon programs. Pakistan is also believed to produce plutonium for nuclear
weapons.
Because reactors and reprocessing plants, as well as large-scale enrichment
plants, are difficult to hide, they may be discovered by other countries, which
may attempt to halt their completion by diplomatic pressure or by military
attack. In 1981 Israel launched a surprise air strike that destroyed an Iraqi
reactor, which Israel feared would be used for plutonium production.
Nonmilitary programs for producing electricity using nuclear power reactors
may also employ uranium enrichment and reprocessing. Most nuclear power
reactors use uranium fuel that has been enriched to 3 to 5 percent, for
example. Today, this material is produced in commercial uranium enrichment
plants in Britain, China, France, Germany, Japan, Netherlands, Russia, and
the United States. In 2006 Iran declared that its gas centrifuges had enriched
uranium to about 3.5 percent. Gas centrifuge enrichment facilities that
produce low-enriched uranium for fuel can be reconfigured to produce highly
enriched uranium for weapons.
In addition, a number of countries are currently reusing, or plan to reuse,
plutonium produced in nuclear power plant fuel. This requires separating the
plutonium from the spent nuclear power plant fuel in a reprocessing facility
and then mixing the plutonium with unenriched uranium to form new fuel,
which is then used in a reactor instead of low-enriched uranium. Britain,
France, India, Japan, and Russia are separating plutonium from spent nuclear
power plant fuel.
C -Nuclear Bomb Design

Countries seeking to produce nuclear weapons must also develop a reliable

design for the weapon. With computer simulations and extensive testing of
the nonnuclear components, it is possible for a country to develop a reliable
design for a fission weapon without the need for a full-scale nuclear
detonation. Some countries also benefit from nuclear weapon design
assistance provided by other nations. For example, Pakistan is believed to
have received a nuclear weapon design from China in the early 1980s. A
senior Pakistani official is known to have provided a copy of this design to
Libya and, possibly, Iran and North Korea. A country may wish to forgo a fullscale nuclear test because a test would be clear proof that it was developing
nuclear weapons, which, in turn, could lead to international criticism and
diplomatic isolation. Israel has adopted this strategy of nuclear ambiguity, as
did Pakistan from the late 1980s, when it is believed to have produced its
first nuclear weapons, until 1998, when it conducted its first nuclear tests.
V -WHY PREVENTS THE SPREAD OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS?
Nuclear war would have devastating consequences. Even a conflict that
involved only the use of one or two fission weapons could cause many
hundreds of thousands of deaths and destroy the centers of major cities.
Large-scale nuclear war, involving the use of hundreds of thermonuclear
weapons, could cause many millions of casualties, destroy nations, and
permanently affect the global environment. Although some scholars argue
otherwise, virtually all governments believe that the spread of nuclear
weapons to additional states will increase the likelihood of nuclear war.
Many of the nations that possess nuclear weapons or have sought to develop
them have long had regional conflicts with each other. For example, India
and Pakistan have had a serious border dispute over Kashmr, China and
India had a brief border conflict, Israel has fought several wars with
neighboring nations in the Middle East, and Iran and Iraq fought an eightyear-long war. North and South Korea, now separated by a demilitarized
zone, fought against each other in the Korean War (1950-1953). These
regional conflicts and other potential conflicts provide the fundamental
reason for the international community to seek to halt the spread of nuclear
weapons.
The spread of nuclear weapons can also permit aggressor nations to
intimidate neighbors and dominate their regions. Iraq under Saddam
Hussein, its former president, is believed to have sought nuclear weapons for
this purpose prior to the 1991 Persian Gulf War. In addition, nuclear weapons
could be used as a threat by a country seeking to advance a global

ideological cause, such as the spread of radical Islamic fundamentalism. A

growing new danger is that a national government, or senior officials within
that government, might provide nuclear weapons or the materials for making
them to terrorist organizations whose views they shared. While nations differ
on the particulars of such dangers, they generally agree that their own
security is best served by curbing the further spread of nuclear arms.
Nuclear proliferation also inevitably increases the risk of accidents involving
nuclear weaponsfor example, during transportwhich could cause great
devastation. This risk may be greatest in less technologically advanced
countries whose weapons may not include the built-in safety features found
in the nuclear weapons of the more advanced nuclear powers. In some
countries, nuclear weapon programs can divert scarce financial and technical
resources from urgently needed development projects, a challenge that can
be severely worsened for states engaged in open-ended nuclear arms races
with rivals.
V -HISTORY OF NONPROLIFERATION EFFORTS
In 1946, in an effort to prevent a nuclear arms race with the Soviet Union
and avoid the spread of nuclear weapons to other countries, the United
States proposed that all materials usable for nuclear weapons be placed
under international control. The Soviet Union, which was not yet a nuclear
weapons state, rejected the proposal, known as the Baruch Plan. Fearing that
growing interest in nuclear energy would lead nuclear technology to spread
uncontrollably, the United States in 1953 launched the Atoms for Peace
program. Under the program, the United States offered to share nuclear
technology for peaceful purposes with friendly states. U.S. inspections would
ensure that transferred items were not diverted for nuclear weapon
programs. A new organization, the International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA), was established in 1957 to take over the inspections. By this time,
the Soviet Union had initiated a similar program for its allies, also relying on
IAEA inspections.
A -Non-Proliferation Treaty
During the 1960s, as concerns grew that nuclear weapons were continuing to
proliferate and as the U.S.-Soviet nuclear arms race accelerated,
negotiations began on a global treaty to halt the further spread of nuclear
weapons. These negotiations resulted in the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation
of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). The treaty was opened for ratification in 1968 and
entered into force in 1970.The treaty establishes two classes of states:
nuclear weapon states and nonnuclear weapon states. Nuclear weapon

states are those that had conducted nuclear tests before January 1, 1967
the United States, Soviet Union (now Russia), Britain, France, and China. All
other countries are nonnuclear weapon states for the purposes of the treaty.
1 -Terms of the Treaty
Under the treaty, the nuclear weapon states party to the agreement pledge
not to transfer nuclear weapons or any other nuclear explosive devices (such
as possible peaceful nuclear explosives for large-scale excavations) to any
recipient or to assist, encourage, or induce any nonnuclear weapon state
to manufacture nuclear weapons or any other nuclear explosive devices. The
nuclear weapon states are not required by the treaty to give up nuclear
weapons.
Nonnuclear weapon states party to the treaty pledge not to manufacture or
receive nuclear weapons or any other nuclear explosive devices. To verify
that they are complying with these pledges, the nonnuclear weapon states
agree to accept IAEA inspections on all of their nuclear activities, an
arrangement known as full-scope safeguards. All parties to the treaty are
prohibited from exporting nuclear equipment or materials to nonnuclear
weapon states unless the exported items will be placed under IAEA
inspection in the recipient country.
The treaty reaffirms the inalienable right of all parties to pursue the
peaceful uses of nuclear energy consistent with the prohibition on the
development of nuclear explosives and calls on all parties to facilitate the
fullest possible sharing of nuclear technology for peaceful purposes.
The treaty states that all parties shall undertake to pursue negotiations in
good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the (U.S.-Soviet)
nuclear arms race and to achieve complete and general nuclear
disarmament.
Any party may withdraw from the treaty on three months notice if it decides
that extraordinary events, related to the subject matter of this Treaty, have
jeopardized the supreme interests of its country.
To persuade the nonnuclear states to agree to the treaty, the nuclear states
indicated that they would not use nuclear weapons in an attack on a
nonnuclear state unless the state was allied with a nuclear power. However,
this pledge was informal and not part of the treaty itself. Since then, Britain
and the United States have stated that they might respond with a nuclear
attack against a nonnuclear state that used chemical or biological weapons.

Some observers believe that preventive war doctrines, such as those

articulated by the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush, may have
the unintended effect of encouraging some nonnuclear states to develop
nuclear weapons for self-protection.
2 -Treaty Limitations
The treaty currently has five nuclear weapon state members and 187
nonnuclear weapon state members. India, Israel, and Pakistan never joined
the treaty, thereby reserving the legal right to develop nuclear weapons.
North Korea became a party to the treaty in 1985 but renounced it in 2003,
exercising its rights under the treatys withdrawal provisions. North Koreas
action highlighted one of the treatys important limitations.
The treatys provision affirming the right of parties to pursue the peaceful
uses of nuclear energy can also be exploited by states seeking nuclear
weapons. The provision has been interpreted as permitting states to operate
nuclear reactors and the facilities needed to fuel them, including enrichment
and reprocessing plants, provided they are all placed under IAEA inspection.
This arrangement could permit a country to stockpile highly enriched
uranium (used in some research reactors) or plutonium while under IAEA
supervision and to then withdraw from the treaty on 90 days notice. This
would leave the country with the materials needed for nuclear weapons.
Some countries have expressed concern that Iran, a nonnuclear weapon
state party to the NPT, is constructing a uranium enrichment plant with this
strategy in mind.
B -Nuclear Suppliers Group
In the early 1970s the NPT Exporters Committee was established to
implement the export control provisions of the treaty. In 1974 India
conducted a nuclear explosion that it claimed was intended to demonstrate
that such explosions could be used for peaceful purposes. Indias test
explosion nevertheless underscored the dangers of further proliferation. In
1978 the principal nuclear supplier countries, including states such as France
that were not then parties to the NPT, established the Nuclear Suppliers
Group to better control nuclear commerce intended for peaceful purposes. In
2004 the group had 40 members and had gradually tightened the groups
common export control rules.
C -Nunn-Lugar Program
The breakup of the Soviet Union in late 1991, which brought an end to the

rigid controls of the Soviet internal security apparatus and began a period of
social and economic turmoil, introduced a major new proliferation threat.
This was the risk that portions of the massive Soviet nuclear weapons
arsenal might leak to countries or terrorist organizations seeking nuclear
weapons. The Soviet nuclear legacy included tens of thousands of nuclear
weapons, hundreds of tons of highly enriched uranium and plutonium not yet
incorporated into weapons, and many thousands of scientists with expertise
in the production of nuclear arms.
To address this threat, in 1991, the United States launched the Cooperative
Threat Reduction Program, also known as the Nunn-Lugar Program, after the
two U.S. senators who launched the initiativeDemocrat Sam Nunn and
Republican Richard Lugar. The program, whose budget in the United States is
roughly $1 billion annually and which is being matched by similar
contributions from other leading industrialized countries, provides monetary
and other assistance for Russia. This assistance is intended to help Russia
improve security over nuclear weapons and nuclear-weapons material,
eliminate excess highly enriched uranium and plutonium, and employ former
Soviet nuclear weapon scientists in nonmilitary research activities.
Assistance is also provided to other countries of the former Soviet Union to
address similar proliferation risks within their borders.
D -Proliferation Security Initiative
In 2003 the United States launched a major new effort to address the threat
of nuclear smuggling, the Proliferation Security Initiative. The initiative seeks
to aggressively enforce national and international laws to seize cargoes
containing equipment and material that could be used to manufacture
weapons of mass destruction equipment before they can reach their
intended destinations. More than 30 nations are now participating in this
effort.
E -UN Resolution 1540 and Other Measures
In April 2004 the United Nations (UN) Security Council adopted Resolution
1540. The resolution requires UN members to implement effective measures
to secure within their borders the know-how, equipment, and materials that
could be used to make weapons of mass destruction and to adopt effective
export controls. This resolution was passed because of growing concerns
about terrorist acquisition of weapons of mass destruction and the
revelations that a senior Pakistani nuclear scientist, Abdul Qadeer Khan, had
sold uranium enrichment equipment to Iran, Libya, and North Korea and a

nuclear weapon design to Libya and possibly the other states.

Many other measures have helped slow proliferation. Under some military
alliances, such as the U.S.-led North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), for
example, nuclear weapon states promise to extend protection to nonnuclear
weapon states, making their development of independent nuclear arsenals
unnecessary. Concerned nations can also direct intensive diplomatic and
economic pressureincluding public criticism, breaking off relations, or
imposing trade embargoesagainst states seeking nuclear weapons. Such
efforts have led some target countries to abandon these programs. Libyas
renunciation of weapons of mass destruction in 2004 was partly the result of
such efforts.
VII -PROBLEMS AND ISSUES IN NONPROLIFERATION EFFORTS
A-Nuclear Smuggling
Efforts to curb nuclear proliferation face a series of major new challenges.
First, the nuclear smuggling network established by Abdul Qadeer Khan
demonstrated that proliferation can be actively assisted not only by national
governments, as in the past, but also by private, nonstate persons and
organizations that have access to key knowledge and equipment. Khans sale
to Libya of all the key elements needed to build a gas centrifuge uranium
enrichment plant and his sale of a proven nuclear weapon design was
unprecedented. Khan appears to have transferred most, if not all, of these to
Iran and North Korea, as well.
In addition, Khans network established machining shops in Malaysia and
perhaps in other locations to manufacture key centrifuge components,
making these activities extremely difficult to detect for foreign intelligence
services seeking to slow proliferation. It is not known whether elements of
Khans network still survive and how many customers may have received
copies of highly sensitive documents. These nonstate actors are far less
visible and can be far more difficult to influence than nations, which can be
pressured diplomatically, or threatened militarily, to change their behavior.
UN Security Council Resolution 1540 will encourage states such as Pakistan
and Malaysia to better control activities related to weapons of mass
destruction within their borders and to prevent improper exports. The
effectiveness of this new element of the nonproliferation regime remains
uncertain, however.
The IAEA is also encouraging NPT nonnuclear weapon states to give the

agency broader inspection authority under an additional protocol to their

basic inspection agreements with the agency. The new authority will give the
agency the right to demand access to any site in a country where the agency
believes activities related to nuclear weapons development may be taking
place. This authority, if widely granted, could significantly restrict future
nuclear smuggling networks.
B -Secret Activities
A second challenge is the growing number of cases in which countries have
pursued secret activities that violated the NPT and were not detected by the
IAEA. In early 2002, for example, the international community first became
aware that Iran was pursuing a major gas centrifuge uranium enrichment
program, including a pilot enrichment facility, a gas centrifuge
manufacturing plant, and early construction of a large-scale enrichment
plant. In 2004 Libyas secret acquisition of uranium gas and of a portion of
the equipment for a similar gas centrifuge facility was also revealed.
Similarly, in 2004, South Koreas previous experiments with laser isotope
enrichment came to light.
All of these countries were parties to the NPT and were obligated to place all
other nuclear materials (and facilities using such materials) under IAEA
inspection. They were also required to disclose plans for the construction of
new nuclear facilities to permit the agency to verify their design. None of
these states, however, complied with these requirements. The IAEA was
unaware of this situation, and so apparently were foreign intelligence
services. The episodes raise serious questions about the effectiveness of key
parts of the international nonproliferation system.
The widespread acceptance of enhanced IAEA inspections by NPT nonnuclear
weapon states through the signing of additional protocols could go far toward
addressing this challenge. Since the disclosure of its uranium enrichment
program, for example, Iran has permitted the IAEA to use the new inspection
techniques. This has allowed the IAEA to uncover many new details about
the previously secret program. Strict IAEA inspections in that country have
been strongly supported by the agencys member states through the IAEA
Board of Governors, an essential element of efforts to enforce IAEA rules,
which may bolster the agency in future cases. In late 2004, as the result of
information uncovered by IAEA inspectors and strong international pressure,
Iran agreed to freeze its uranium enrichment program, under an agreement
with the European Union (EU), negotiated by Britain, France, and Germany.

In February 2006, however, Iran announced that it was resuming its uranium
enrichment program. In March the United Nations Security Council issued a
statement demanding that Iran cease its program. In April Iranian president
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad declared that by using a cascade of 164 linked gas
centrifuges Iran had succeeded in enriching uranium to about 3.5 percent,
which is suitable only for use as nuclear reactor fuel. The IAEA subsequently
confirmed this achievement and said Iran was in violation of the Security
Councils demand to cease uranium enrichment. Ahmadinejad also boasted
that Iran had developed a more advanced type of gas centrifuge, known as
the P-2, which is capable of enriching uranium much more quickly. The IAEA
said Iran had refused to provide details about the program, which the IAEA
needs to inspect effectively. Iran continued to declare its support for the NPT,
but many proliferation experts and officials in other countries worried that
Iran might have a secret nuclear weapons program.
Nonproliferation may also be facing a more basic challenge: Some states
may believe that they need nuclear weapons to protect themselves against
bullying or military intervention by more powerful states. North Korea has
justified its development of nuclear arms as a deterrent against U.S.
aggression. Iran, similarly, may be developing the option to manufacture
nuclear weapons out of concern that, without them, it would be vulnerable to
U.S. intervention, as Iraq was.
The United States has attempted to address such concerns. In the case of
North Korea, the United States has held discussions on a package of
arrangements that might include a nonaggression agreement, diplomatic
recognition, and economic assistance. The package would be provided in
return for North Koreas giving up its nuclear weapons program under strict
verification. In the case of Iran, the United States has emphasized that it
seeks a diplomatic solution to limiting Irans uranium enrichment program.
Iran has emphasized that its nuclear program is exclusively for peaceful
purposes and appears reluctant to withdraw from the NPT. This is an
indication that the norm of nonproliferation remains a powerful influence
internationally.
C -Nuclear Lobbies
Another challenge to nonproliferation comes from individual scientists and
nuclear-related organizations within individual countries that are strong
champions of nuclear weapons development. Pressure by such groups is
believed, for example, to have led India to conduct a series of nuclear tests

in 1998, reversing the countrys no-nuclear-test policy of 24 years. In states

with existing nuclear arsenals, the desire to sustain budgets and influence
can lead organizations to oppose arms reduction initiatives. Advocates of
nuclear exports in some states can also lead to governmental decisions that
some argue promote proliferation, such as Russias decision to help Iran build
a nuclear power plant at Bshehr.
In most nations, however, advocates of policies of nuclear restraint counter
these pressures. In Libya, for example, those promoting the countrys secret
uranium enrichment program were overruled by others who believed it was
wiser for the country to renounce weapons of mass destruction and become
accepted as a valued member of the international community. Initiatives by
outside countries to curb proliferation can take advantage of these different
perspectives within nations, by emphasizing the advantages such nations
will enjoy by remaining non-nuclear weapon statesand the penalties they
may suffer if they pursue nuclear arms.
D -The Terrorist Threat
Among the most dangerous proliferation challenges is the threat that a
terrorist organization might acquire a nuclear weapon or the highly enriched
uranium or plutonium that would allow it to manufacture one. Given the
unrestrained injury some terrorist groups seek to inflict upon their enemies
and their disregard for their own survival, it must be feared that a group,
such as al-Qaeda, would use a nuclear weapon, causing catastrophic harm.
Preventing this outcome requires rapid completion of efforts to secure
nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons materials worldwide, particularly in
Russia, through cooperative threat reduction programs.
VIII -DISARMAMENT
Nuclear disarmament appears a very distant and, possibly, unachievable,
prospect. Nonetheless, at least one country, South Africa, has taken this
step, Libya has chosen to end its pursuit of weapons of mass destruction,
and Iran insists that, although it will pursue its uranium enrichment program,
it will not develop nuclear arms. Negotiations with North Korea may
ultimately result in the elimination of its nuclear weapons. Thus, despite
current challenges, international nonproliferation efforts have accomplished
much, even if the record is far from perfect.
Arms Control

I -INTRODUCTION
Arms Control, attempts through treaties, proclamations, convention, and
tacit agreement to limit the destructiveness of war by controlling the
acquisition and use of weapons and military technology.
Historically, warfare appears to be an integral part of human affairs. In 3,000
years of recorded history, most historiansbelieve that not a single year has
been free of armed conflict. Yet people have always recognized the folly,
waste, and inhumanity of warfare and have continually attempted to limit its
devastation and the spread of increasingly destructive weapons.
II - HISTORY
One of the earliest formal attempts to limit the scope of war was organized
by the Amphictyonic League, a quasi-religious alliance of most of the Greek
tribes, formed before the 7th century BC. League members were pledged to
restrain their actions in war against other members. For example, they were
barred from cutting a besieged city's water supply. The league was
empowered to impose sanctions on violating members, including fines and
punitive expeditions, and could require its members to provide troops and
funds for this purpose.
A -The Middle Ages
Because arms technology remained nearly static from the 3rd century BC to
the Middle Ages, few attempts were made to control the spread of new
weapons. In feudal societies, such as those of medieval Europe or Japan,
laws and customs developed to keep weapons a monopoly of the military
classes and to suppress arms that might democratize warfare. These
customs tended to disappear as soon as some power saw a decisive
advantage in the use of a new weapon. In medieval Europe the Roman
Catholic Church attempted to use its power as a supranational organization
to limit both new weapons and the intensity of warfare. The Peace of God,
instituted in 990, protected church-owned property, defenseless
noncombatants, and the agrarian base of the economy from the ravages of
war. In 1139 the Second Lateran Council prohibited the use of the crossbow
against Christians, although not against those the church considered infidels.
B -Early Modern Period
Firearms widened the scope of war and increased the potential for violence,
culminating in the devastation of central Europe in the Thirty Years' War

(1618-1648). Widespread revulsion against the horrors of that conflict led to

attempts in many countries to lessen the brutality of warfare by limiting
combat to recognized armed forces, by formulating conventions for the
humane treatment of prisoners and wounded, and by organizing logistics to
end supply by pillage. These rules prevailed throughout the 18th century,
making war a relatively limited and civilized game of kings. Many utopian
plans for the total abolition of war were also formulated during this period by
men such as French philosopher Jean Jacques Rousseau and Charles Castel,
Abb de Saint Pierre. Frederick the Great, king of Prussia, commented that all
these plans needed to succeed was the cooperation of all the kings of
Europe. The rise of mass armies during the American Revolution (1775-1783)
and Napoleonic Wars (1799-1815) again enlarged the size and devastation of
war; yet throughout that period no attempts were made to reduce or limit
national arsenals other than those imposed by the victors upon the defeated.
The one exception was the Rush-Bagot Treaty (1817), under which Britain
and the United States reduced, equalized, and eventually eliminated their
naval forces on the Great Lakes.
C -The Hague Conferences
In the 19th century the manufacturing capabilities created by the Industrial
Revolution were applied to the production of war matriel. Technological
innovation led to the development of rifled artillery, breech-loading rifles,
machine guns, and other weapons that revolutionized warfare. The resources
of entire nations could now be turned to war, making possible conflicts of
unprecedented scale and destructiveness. Although many government
leaders saw the arms buildup in Europe as potentially disastrous, nothing
was done to reduce armaments until the First Hague Disarmament
Conference of 1899.
The First Hague Conference was convened at the initiative of Nicholas II of
Russia to control arms development and improve the conditions of warfare.
Twenty-six nations attended the conference, which codified the laws and
customs of land warfare, defined the status of belligerents, and drafted
regulations on the treatment of prisoners, the wounded, and neutrals. It also
banned aerial bombardment (by balloons), dumdum (expansion) bullets, and
the use of poison gas. Most important, it established the Permanent Court of
Arbitration to arbitrate international disputes (although this court had no
enforcement powers).
The Second Hague Disarmament Conference of 1907 was marked more by

discord than discourse, a sign of the deteriorating world situation. It did

further the cause of mediation and arbitration of disputes by establishing
additional courts to arbitrate cases involving ships' cargoes seized during
war and resolution of international debts. A Third Hague Conference was
scheduled for 1915. Ironically, World War I (1914-1918) caused its
abandonment.
III -MODERN INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS
After the carnage of World War I, the international climate was more
receptive to the idea of arms control. During the years between the two
world wars, many formal arms-control conferences were held and many
treaties were drawn up. The Covenant of the League of Nations established
criteria for reducing world armaments. The league's Council was to establish
reasonable limits on the military forces of each country and submit them for
consideration to the member governments. Members of the league were also
called upon to limit the private manufacture of arms and munitions and to
exchange information on the size and status of their military establishments
and arms industries. The league's lack of enforcement capability, however,
made compliance strictly voluntary.
A -Washington Conference
From 1921 to 1922 the Washington Naval Conference was held to establish
stable relationships among the naval forces of the various powers. Three
treaties were enacted at the conference: the Four-Power Treaty, the FivePower Treaty, and the Nine-Power Treaty. By the terms of the first, France,
Britain, Japan, and the United States agreed to respect the status quo in the
fortification of Pacific possessions and promised consultation in the event of
a dispute. An associated agreement was signed with The Netherlands
regarding the Netherlands Indies (now Indonesia).
The second treaty focused on arms limitations. A 5-5-3-1.75-1.75 ratio was
established between United States, British, Japanese, French, and Italian
battleships. That is, for every 5 United States and British battleships, Japan
was allowed 3 and France and Italy were allowed 1.75. Maximum total
tonnage was limited, as well as specification of a maximum single-ship
tonnage of 35,000 tons. A ten-year moratorium on battleship building
(except to fill out the treaty) and a limit on size and armament were also
included. The third treaty was an attempt to accommodate the signatories
interests in China.

B -Geneva Conference and the Kellogg-Briand Pact

In 1925 a convention in Geneva, Switzerland, banned the use of toxic gas in
warfare. By the time World War II began in 1939, most of the Great Powers,
except Japan and the United States, were signatories. (Japan signed it in
1970 and the United States in 1974.) This accord has been observed by most
of the signatories, although Italy used gas in Ethiopia in 1936. See also
Chemical and Biological Warfare. In 1928 the Kellogg-Briand Pact, initiated by
France and the United States, was signed by 63 nations. The pact renounced
war as an instrument of foreign policy. It made no provisions, however, for
enforcing compliance, and many nations only signed it with sweeping
qualifications. It had no effect on international affairs.
C -The Fate of Disarmament in the 1930s
In 1930 a naval conference was held in London to amend the Washington
Conference treaties. Its most important effect was to change the U.S.Japanese battleship ratio to 5-3.5. It also extended the battleship moratorium
through 1936. In 1932, after nearly ten years of preliminary discussions, a
World Disarmament Conference was held in Geneva under the auspices of
the League of Nations. The keystone of the conference was the so-called
Hoover Plan, which consisted of proposals put forth by the United States
based on the concept of qualitative disarmamentthat is, the progressive
elimination of offensive weapons. The result was to have been an
increasingly unfavorable ratio between offensive and defensive power.
Qualifications imposed by many of the major nations, however, diluted the
Hoover Plan until little remained but a statement of principles.
A final naval conference was held in London in 1936. There the United States
and Britain reaffirmed the naval limitation treaties, with an acceleration
clause (that is, one providing for proportional increase in the U.S.-to-British
ratio) to counteract any German or Japanese violations. The Japanese,
increasingly militaristic and fearful of American and British superiority,
withdrew from further negotiations. This was the last major arms-control
conference before World War II (1939-1945).
IV -CONTROL OF THE MEANS FOR MASS DESTRUCTION
After World War II ended in 1945, considerable support again developed for
arms control and for alternatives to military conflict in international relations.
The United Nations (UN) Charter was designed to permit a supranational
agency to enforce peace, avoiding many of the weaknesses of the League of
Nations covenant. Thus, Article 11 of the charter stated that the General

Assembly could consider the general principle of disarmament and the

regulation of armaments. Article 26 required the Security Council to submit
plans for a system of armament regulation. Article 47 established a military
staff committee to assist the Security Council in this task.
A -Atomic Arms Race
The development of the atomic bomb by the United States toward the end of
World War II brought with it the capability of devastating whole civilizations
(see Nuclear Weapons). While the United States still maintained a monopoly
on nuclear weapons, it made overtures in the UN for the control and
elimination of atomic energy for military purposes. In June 1946, American
representative Bernard Baruch presented a plan to the UN Atomic Energy
Commission, calling for the abolition of nuclear weapons, international
control over the processing of nuclear materials, full sharing of all scientific
and technological information concerning atomic energy, and safeguards to
ensure that atomic energy would be used only for civilian purposes. The
government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) vetoed the
Baruch Plan in the Security Council, objecting to the UNs authority over
disarmament and citing the domination of that body by the United States
and Western Europe.
In 1949 the USSR exploded an atomic weapon of its own, ending the U.S.
monopoly. The possibility of a nuclear war was now present, because
relations between the USSR and the West were tense (see Cold War). Both
the United States and the USSR were engaged in a race to develop
thermonuclear (hydrogen) devices, which have many times the destructive
power of atomic bombs. These weapons raised the possibility of ending all
life on Earth in all-out war. After 1954, when the USSR exploded its first
hydrogen bomb, the primary concern of arms control was to reduce nuclear
arsenals and prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons technology
B -Agreements Limiting Nuclear Weapons
In 1957 the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) was established to
oversee the development and spread of nuclear technology and materials.
Two years later a treaty was negotiated to demilitarize the Antarctic and to
prohibit the detonation or storage of nuclear weapons there. Both the United
States and the USSR were among the signatories.
In 1961 the UN General Assembly passed the Joint Statement of Agreed
Principles for Disarmament Negotiations. It was followed in 1963 by a treaty

that bound the United States, the United Kingdom, and the Soviet Union not
to test nuclear weapons in space, in the atmosphere, or under water. In 1967
another treaty between the same nations limited the military use of outer
space to reconnaissance only. The deployment of nuclear weapons in orbit
was expressly prohibited. A second treaty in 1967 banned nuclear weapons
from Latin America. One of the most important agreements on arms control
was the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty of 1968. Signatories pledged to
restrict the development, deployment, and testing of nuclear weapons to
ensure that weapons, materials, or technology would not be transferred
outside the five countries that then had nuclear weapons (Great Britain,
France, China, the United States, and the USSR). In 1995 more than 170
countries agreed to permanently extend the treaty.
In the late 1960s the United States and the USSR initiated negotiations to
regulate strategic weapon arsenals. These negotiations became known as
the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks. The SALT I negotiations produced two
important agreements in 1972: the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM Treaty),
which drastically limited the establishment of defensive installations
designed to shoot down ballistic missiles, and the Interim Agreement on the
Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms. That same year the two superpowers
also signed a treaty barring the testing of nuclear weapons on the ocean
floor. The SALT II negotiations, which began in 1972, produced another treaty
in 1979 that would limit the total number of U.S. and USSR missile launchers.
After the USSR invaded Afghanistan in 1979, relations between the United
States and the USSR rapidly deteriorated, and the U.S. Senate never ratified
the treaty. During the early 1980s controversy surrounded the placement by
the United States of ballistic missiles on the territory of some of its Western
European allies. Opposition to this within West Germany (which became part
of the united Federal Republic of Germany in 1990) played a part in
unseating Chancellor Helmut Schmidt in 1982. In 1983 U.S. antinuclear
groups rallied to support a bilateral arms freeze, and U.S. Roman Catholic
bishops approved a pastoral letter with a similar aim.
Controversy also surrounded the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) introduced
by President Ronald Reagan in 1983. This research program for developing a
defense against ballistic missiles appeared likely to undermine the ABM
Treaty and challenged the assumptions of nuclear strategy since the
beginning of the arms race. Since the late 1940s both deployment of nuclear
arms by the superpowers and restrictions upon their use had been founded
upon a theory of deterrence. According to this theory, the mutual likelihood

of destruction in the event of a nuclear confrontation between the United

States and the USSR preserved a delicate balance between the two
superpowers. Stable relations between the nations required that they
possess a roughly equal capacity to harm each other. Critics of SDI believed
that efforts to construct a defense against nuclear weapons would destroy
that balance and remove the conditions that prevented nuclear weapons
from being used.
Despite these concerns, U.S.-Soviet arms negotiations resumed in 1985. At a
summit meeting in Washington, D.C., in December 1987, President Reagan
and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev signed the Intermediate Range Nuclear
Forces Treaty (INF), which eliminated many nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles
that had been deployed throughout Europe and the western Soviet Union.
The treaty called for the destruction of all U.S. and Soviet missiles with
ranges of about 500 to 5,500 km (about 300 to 3,400 mi) and established a
13-year program to verify compliance. The INF treaty was ratified by the U.S.
Senate and the Soviet Presidium in May 1988.
C -No nuclear Weapons Agreements
Agreements to restrict or eliminate the production and use of biological and
chemical weapons date back to the Geneva Convention of 1925. In 1972 the
United States, the USSR, and most other nations signed a convention
prohibiting development, production, and stockpiling of biological and
chemical weapons. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, Iraqs use of chemical
weapons against Iran during the Iran-Iraq War, and in subsequent attacks on
its own Kurdish population, prompted renewed international efforts to ban
the use of such weapons. In 1993 representatives from 160 nations approved
the Chemical Weapons Convention. This agreement banned production, use,
sale, and storage of all chemical weapons. It also mandated destruction of
existing stocks of weapons by the year 2005. The United States ratified this
convention in 1997, despite concerns about the proliferation of chemical
weapons among nations such as Libya, Syria, Iraq, and North Korea that were
not signatories to the agreement.
Conventional weapons such as booby traps and land mines also possess
enormous destructive capacity. Land mines are especially troubling because
they retain their destructive power for indefinite periods of time. The
International Committee of the Red Cross estimates that nearly 2 million land
mines around the world kill or maim nearly 15,000 civilians every year.
Global sentiment against land mines led more than 120 countries to sign a

treaty in 1997 banning the use, production, transfer, and stockpiling of the
weapons. The effectiveness of the ban was called into question, however, by
the refusal of major powers such as the United States, Russia, Turkey, and
China to sign the agreement.
V -COLD WAR AFTERMATH
As the 1990s began, the United States and the USSR continued to negotiate
arms-control accords. In May 1990 Gorbachev and U.S. president George H.
W. Bush approved a treaty to end production and reduce stockpiles of
chemical weapons. In 1991 the United States and the USSR signed the
Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START I), requiring both nations to reduce
their strategic nuclear arsenals by about 25 percent. Both sides also moved
to reduce conventional weapons and to continue phased withdrawal of their
forces from Europe.
The collapse of the USSR in late 1991 raised complex new problems. The
location of strategic nuclear weapons at multiple sites in Russia, Ukraine,
Kazakhstan, and Belarus raised concerns about the safety and security of
these weapons. The U.S. Congress appropriated $1.5 billion to help these
former Soviet states dismantle nuclear weapons and develop safe storage of
weapons-grade nuclear materials. In 1992 these countries and the United
States agreed to abide by the terms of the 1991 START I agreement.
In 1993 President Bush and Russian president Boris Yeltsin signed the START
II treaty. This treaty called for the elimination of almost two-thirds of the
nuclear warheads and all the multiple-warhead land-based missiles held by
the United States and the former Soviet republics. In January 1996 the U.S.
Senate ratified the START II treaty, but the Russian parliament never
approved the accord. The START II treaty never went into effect, and in 2002
it was replaced by a new strategic arms reduction agreement known as the
Treaty of Moscow.
In September 1996 leaders of the five major nuclear powersthe United
States, Russia, China, France, and Britainand dozens of other countries
signed the landmark Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which banned most
types of nuclear weapons testing. In order to take effect, however, the treaty
must be formally approved, or ratified, by all nations believed to be capable
of producing nuclear arms. In 1999 the U.S. Senate rejected the treaty by a
vote of 51 to 48. China, Israel, Pakistan, and India are among other known
nuclear powers that have not ratified the treaty.
The Senate vote against the treaty drew criticism from many U.S. allies,

including Britain, Germany, and France. Senate opponents of the treaty

argued that it was unenforceable, and they raised concerns that the treaty
left open the possibility that rogue powers, such as Iraq or North Korea, could
stockpile nuclear weapons, while at the same time it blocked the United
States from upgrading its nuclear arsenal.
The Senates refusal to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty came on
the heels of another setback. In mid-1998 India conducted a series of
underground tests of nuclear weapons. About two weeks later, Indias
archrival, Pakistan, detonated its own nuclear devices to demonstrate that it
also possessed the powerful weapons. Both nations were internationally
condemned for the tests. The United States, the International Monetary Fund,
the European Union, and individual nations imposed economic sanctions on
India and Pakistan in retaliation. Roughly a year later India tested a ballistic
missile capable of delivering a nuclear warhead to any target within Pakistan,
and days later Pakistan responded by testing a missile with similar
capabilities. In 2002 tensions between the two nations over the disputed
territory of Kashmr raised fears of a nuclear war.
Meanwhile, the United States under the administration of President Bill
Clinton reached an important arms control arrangement with North Korea in
1994. Although relations between the United States and North Korea
remained tense, under the arrangement North Korea agreed to freeze all
work on the infrastructure of reactors and reprocessing plants needed to
produce plutonium for nuclear weapons. In exchange, Japan, South Korea,
and the United States agreed to provide fuel oil and other economic aid to
North Korea.
In 2002, however, this arrangement began to unravel. United States
intelligence agencies reported that while being paid not to produce
plutonium, there was evidence that North Korea might be at work to enrich
uranium or to create the facilities needed to enrich uranium, the other way of
obtaining nuclear weapons. That triggered North Koreas inclusion in the
axis of evil cited by U.S. president George W. Bush in his State of the Union
speech in January 2002. The United States also responded to this intelligence
report by halting supplies of fuel oil to North Korea. In October 2002 a U.S.
official reported that a North Korean official had admitted that North Korea
had a uranium enrichment program. North Korean officials, however,
subsequently denied that North Korea had a covert program to develop
nuclear weapons with enriched uranium. In January 2003 North Korea

expelled United Nations (UN) monitors with the International Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA) and withdrew from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
In April 2003 North Korea told U.S. officials that it possessed nuclear
weapons, and in October 2003 North Korean officials said they were
extracting plutonium from spent nuclear fuel rods to produce nuclear
weapons. In November 2003 the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency repeated
its belief that North Korea possessed at least one and possibly two nuclear
bombs. However, other former and current U.S. intelligence officials said
they were skeptical that North Korea had the technological know-how to
produce nuclear weapons. In February 2004 North Korea entered talks with
China, Japan, Russia, South Korea, and the United States to discuss an
agreement that would end North Koreas nuclear weapons program. In
October 2006 North Korea tested a nuclear weapon. In February 2007 the
six-nation talks resulted in an agreement in which North Korea pledged to
shut down its main nuclear reactor at Yongbyon, which produces plutonium
as a byproduct, in exchange for aid. That agreement led to a subsequent
North Korean pledge in October 2007 to disable its Yongbyon reactor by the
end of the year in exchange for 950,000 metric tons of fuel oil or its
equivalent in economic aid. North Korea also agreed to disclose all of its
nuclear programs and promised not to transfer its nuclear materials,
technology, or know-how beyond its borders.
VI -OUTLOOK FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
As the world entered the 21st century, both progress and setbacks occurred
in arms control. In 2001 the administration of U.S. president George W. Bush
announced that it would unilaterally withdraw from the ABM Treaty, laying
the groundwork for the deployment of defenses against long-range ballistic
missiles. For the first time the U.S. government also announced a policy that
under extreme circumstances it would consider using nuclear weapons
against a nonnuclear state that employed biological or chemical weapons.
The Bush administration, however, also pursued an arms reduction
agreement with the Russian Federation, and the two nations signed a treaty
in 2002 to deactivate about 75 percent of their strategic nuclear arsenals.
Under the 2002 agreement, both nations were to reduce their active
inventories of strategic nuclear warheads from about 6,000 each to about
2,200 warheads each by the year 2012. The agreement, known as the Treaty
of Moscow, required ratification by both the U.S. Senate and the Russian
Duma (parliament) before it could go into effect. Once ratified the new treaty
was to replace the previous START II treaty.

Observers noted that the new treaty contained a number of escape clauses.
Either side could withdraw from the treaty with only three months notice,
and the reductions did not have to take effect until 2012, the same year the
treaty expires. The treaty also enabled both nations to place the deactivated
warheads in storage or to set them aside as operational spares that could
be quickly reactivated. Critics of the agreement argued that the deactivated
warheads should be destroyed, rather than stored, because of the danger
that terrorists could obtain access to stored weapons, which are presumably
less well guarded than those in active service.
A -Spread of Nuclear Weapons Technology
In February 2004 Pakistans leading nuclear scientist, Abdul Qadeer Khan,
admitted that he and other Pakistani scientists shared nuclear weapons
technology with several other nations for more than a decade, from 1989 to
2000. The countries were identified as Iran, Libya, and North Korea. In a
nationally televised address, Khan apologized for his actions. The next day
Pakistan president Pervez Musharraf pardoned Khan, whose ties to Pakistans
leading nuclear weapons laboratory had been severed in 2001 due to
financial irregularities.
The initial evidence against Khan came from the UNs International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA) and various Western intelligence agencies, including
the United States. The evidence included the discovery of documents
detailing designs for nuclear weapons and equipment built to enrich uranium
for making nuclear weapons. Iranian and Libyan officials themselves turned
over some of the evidence to the IAEA. In addition, the United States seized
a ship in August 2003 that was bound for Libya with parts for making
specialized gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium. Khan had
assembled a vast network for sharing nuclear weapons technology that
included intermediaries in Dubai, Germany, South Africa, Sri Lanka, and The
Netherlands. Khan was reportedly motivated by his desire to see other
Muslim nations obtain nuclear weapons, both to help the Islamic cause and
to deflect attention from Pakistans nuclear weapons program. He was also
reportedly motivated by money and had grown enormously wealthy, despite
a modest government salary.
Although the disclosure of Khans network added more knowledge about the
extent of the secret nuclear weapons programs maintained by Iran and
Libya, the IAEA concluded that neither Libya nor Iran were close to building a

nuclear weapon. The IAEA did find, however, that Irans program was more
advanced than Libyas. Libya in 2004 renounced its program to develop
weapons of mass destruction, and Iran agreed to an additional protocol with
the IAEA to give its weapons experts greater authority to inspect Irans
territory and facilities. In 2006 Iran announced that it had demonstrated the
ability to enrich uranium for use in nuclear power plants, and this ability was
confirmed by the IAEA. The UN Security Council subsequently imposed
limited economic sanctions on Iran for violating the terms of an earlier
agreement. Irans leaders also said they intended to set up 3,000 gas
centrifuges in a cascade, which would demonstrate an ability to enrich
uranium on an industrial scale. Iran continued to insist that its nuclear
program was only for peaceful purposes. In August 2007 the IAEA verified
that Iran had been able to set up a cascade of about 2,000 centrifuges, well
short of its goal of 3,000 centrifuges. The IAEA said Iran was enriching
uranium at levels that could only be used for generating electricity.
B -New U.S. Research Program
In late 2003 the United States began funding a research program that could
lead to a new type of nuclear weapon known as a mininuke. The mininuke
would be the equivalent of 5 kilotons, or 5,000 tons of TNT. By comparison,
the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima, Japan, had an explosive power
equivalent to 15 kilotons. The purpose of the mininuke is to destroy
underground command-and-control bunkers, underground arms depots, and
other underground facilities. The research is aimed at developing a nuclear
weapon that could penetrate the layers of steel and concrete designed to
protect such bunkers without exploding on impact. Some arms control
advocates objected to the research, saying it would lead to a new type of
nuclear weapon, which would violate the intent of the Comprehensive Test
Ban Treaty.
Poverty

I -INTRODUCTION
Poverty, condition of having insufficient resources or income. In its most
extreme form, poverty is a lack of basic human needs, such as adequate and
nutritious food, clothing, housing, clean water, and health services. Extreme
poverty can cause terrible suffering and death, and even modest levels of
poverty can prevent people from realizing many of their desires. The worlds
poorest peoplemany of whom live in developing areas of Africa, Asia, Latin

America, and Eastern Europestruggle daily for food, shelter, and other
necessities. They often suffer from severe malnutrition, epidemic disease
outbreaks, famine, and war. In wealthier countriessuch as the United
States, Canada, Japan, and those in Western Europethe effects of poverty
may include poor nutrition, mental illness, drug dependence, crime, and high
rates of disease.
Extreme poverty, which threatens peoples health or lives, is also known as
destitution or absolute poverty. In the United States, extreme poverty is
traditionally defined as having an annual income that is less than half of the
official poverty line (an income level determined by the Bureau of the
Census). Extreme poverty in developing nations, as defined by international
organizations, means having a household income of less than U.S.$1 per day.
Relative poverty is the condition of having fewer resources or less income
than others within a society or country, or compared to worldwide averages.
In developed countries, relative poverty often is measured as having a family
income less than one-half of the median income for that country.
The reasons for poverty are not clear. Some people believe that poverty
results from a lack of adequate resources on a global levelresources such
as land, food, and building materialsthat are necessary for the well-being
or survival of the worlds people. Others see poverty as an effect of the
uneven distribution of resources around the world on an international or even
regional scale. This second line of reasoning helps explain why many people
have much more than they need to live in comfort, while many others do not
have enough resources to live.
II -POVERTY THROUGHOUT HISTORY
Poverty has been a concern in societies since before the beginning of
recorded history. According to sociologists and anthropologists, social
stratificationthe division of a society into a hierarchy of wealth, power, and
statuswas a defining characteristic of the earliest civilizations, including
those of ancient Egypt, Sumer in the Middle East, and the Indus Valley of
what is now India. The rulers and other powerful or wealthy members of
these civilizations frequently mistreated the poor, sometimes subjecting
them to hard labor or enslaving them.
Babylonian, Talmudic, and early Christian writings from later times entreat
people with resources and good fortune to relate to the poor with
compassion. As the powerful nations of Western civilization became

established, they codified relationships between the poor and nonpoor into
law, as was done in Babylonia (see Code of Hammurabi). The present-day
welfare systems of the United Kingdom, the United States, and Canada
evolved from a 17th-century British legal act known commonly as the Poor
Laws.
The rise of civilizations also led to stratification among nations and territories
around the globe. Powerful and wealthy nations maintained and increased
their power and wealth and built empires by using the labor and resources of
less powerful regions. This dynamic took on a new form in the era of
colonialism (see Colonialism and Colonies). Through two colonial periods
from the 15th century to the early 19th century and from the early 19th
century to the mid-20th centurycountries in western Europe, and later the
United States and Japan, laid claim to territories and created colonies and
new countries in Asia, Africa, and the Americas. These were areas where
people still lived directly off the land and where natural resources were
plentiful. Colonizers variously sought to acquire new resources and
productive land, to spread religion, to find religious freedom, and to gain
strategic positions against rival nations in political and military
confrontations.
During the first period of colonialism, several western European countries
led by Portugal, The Netherlands, Spain, France, and Britainused their
colonial territories to provide them with goods for consumption and trade. In
the late 18th century, the Industrial Revolution brought mechanized
production to many nations and ushered in a second period of colonialism.
Industrialization began in Britain and soon spread to North America, much of
western Europe, and some Pacific nations, such as Japan. Industrialized
countries could produce much larger quantities of goods and resources than
had previously been possible. To achieve this level of production they relied
on colonies to provide raw materials for building and powering machines and
for supplying their factories. The industrialized countries, and many of the
people living in them, experienced increases in wealth and ease of access to
essential resources, including clothing, building materials, and staple foods.
The colonies in Africa, South and East Asia, and what is now Latin America
did not share in these gains. Often, the resources of the colonies were
exploited by the colonizing countries, especially geographically smaller ones
such as Britain and The Netherlands, to supply raw materials such as metal
ores for smelting or sugarcane for the production of rum. In the colonies, the

production of food and raw materials for manufacturing diverted indigenous

peoples from doing subsistence work, such as gardening or tending livestock.
Others were simply displaced from their land. Native Africans, Asians, and
Americans had been self-sufficient as farmers, herders, or hunter-gatherers;
now they became dependent, for the first time, on outsiders for their basic
needs, and many became poor. An exception to this pattern occurred in two
of the worlds largest countries, Russia and China. These countries used
primarily their own hinterlands to obtain resources.
In other cases, colonies were centers of trade in slaves (see Slavery: Modern
Period). Many European nations, including Portugal, Britain, Spain, France,
The Netherlands, and Denmark, set up outposts in West Africa from which
they shipped slaves to the colonies of the Americas and the Caribbean.
These countries also used slaves for free labor in their own lands. Slaves
suffered a total loss of home, land, and livelihood.
The economies of the former colonies in Africa, Asia, and Latin America
began to change only in the mid-20th century when they gained political
independence. Most former colonies came to be known as developing
countries or, collectively, as the Third World. The Third World is home to the
worlds poorest people. The countries of eastern Europewhich were
formerly part of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) and the
Communist blocand the Peoples Republic of China are sometimes referred
to as the Second World. These countries have vast rural territories and a
legacy of state-owned property, facilities, and equipment (as for farming)
from the years of Communist rule. They have become industrialized but
many still have high levels of poverty. The former colonizing countries, which
have highly industrialized and postindustrial (service- and information-based)
economies, have become known generally as developed countries.
The unequal distribution of wealth and resources generated in the colonial
period has become even more pronounced in the postindustrial or
information age. Members of societies with access to good educational
opportunities and advanced technology profit far more from the emerging
global economy than do members of less developed societies.
III -CAUSES OF POVERTY
Poverty has many causes, some of them very basic. Some experts suggest,
for instance, that the world has too many people, too few jobs, and not
enough food. But such basic causes are quite intractable and not easily
eradicated. In most cases, the causes and effects of poverty interact, so that

what makes people poor also creates conditions that keep them poor.
Primary factors that may lead to poverty include (1) overpopulation, (2) the
unequal distribution of resources in the world economy, (3) inability to meet
high standards of living and costs of living, (4) inadequate education and
employment opportunities, (5) environmental degradation, (6) certain
economic and demographic trends, and (7) welfare incentives.
A -Overpopulation
Overpopulation, the situation of having large numbers of people with too few
resources and too little space, is closely associated with poverty. It can result
from high population density (the ratio of people to land area, usually
expressed as numbers of persons per square kilometer or square mile) or
from low amounts of resources, or from both. Excessively high population
densities put stress on available resources. Only a certain number of people
can be supported on a given area of land, and that number depends on how
much food and other resources the land can provide. In countries where
people live primarily by means of simple farming, gardening, herding,
hunting, and gathering, even large areas of land can support only small
numbers of people because these labor-intensive subsistence activities
produce only small amounts of food.
In developed countries such as the United States, Japan, and the countries of
western Europe, overpopulation generally is not considered a major cause of
poverty. These countries produce large quantities of food through
mechanized farming, which depends on commercial fertilizers, large-scale
irrigation, and agricultural machinery. This form of production provides
enough food to support the high densities of people in metropolitan areas.
A countrys level of poverty can depend greatly on its mix of population
density and agricultural productivity. Bangladesh, for example, has one of
the worlds highest population densities, with 938 persons per sq km (2,430
persons per sq mi). A large majority of the people of Bangladesh engage in
low-productivity manual farming, which contributes to the countrys
extremely high level of poverty. Some of the smaller countries in western
Europe, such as The Netherlands and Belgium, have high population
densities as well. These countries practice mechanized farming and are
involved in high-tech industries, however, and therefore have high standards
of living.
At the other end of the spectrum, many countries in sub-Saharan Africa have

population densities of less than 30 persons per sq km (80 persons per sq

mi). Many people in these countries practice manual subsistence farming;
these countries also have infertile land and lack the economic resources and
technology to boost productivity. As a consequence, these nations are very
poor. The United States has both relatively low population density and high
agricultural productivity; it is one of the worlds wealthiest nations.
High birth rates contribute to overpopulation in many developing countries.
Children are assets to many poor families because they provide labor,
usually for farming. Cultural norms in traditionally rural societies commonly
sanction the value of large families. Also, the governments of developing
countries often provide little or no support, financial or political, for family
planning (see Birth Control); even people who wish to keep their families
small have difficulty doing so. For all these reasons, developing countries
tend to have high rates of population growth. Most developed countries
provide considerable political and financial support for family planning.
People tend to limit the number of children they have because of the
availability of this support. Cultural norms in these countries also tend to
affirm the ideal of small family size. Recently, however, some developed
countries with declining population levels have begun experimenting with
incentives to increase the birth rate. See also Population: World Population
Growth and Distribution.
B -Global Distribution of Resources
Many experts agree that the legacy of colonialism accounts for much of the
unequal distribution of resources in the world economy. In many developing
countries, the problems of poverty are massive and pervasive. In recent
decades most of these countries have tried to develop their economies with
industry and technology with varying levels of success. Some nations have
become fairly wealthy, including the Republic of Indonesia, Malaysia,
Singapore, South Korea, and Thailand. Many developing countries, however,
lack essential raw materials and the knowledge and skills gained through
formal education and training. They also often lack the infrastructure
provided by, for example, transportation systems and power-generating
facilities. Because these things are necessary for the development of
industry, developing countries generally must rely on trade with developed
countries for manufactured goods, but they cannot afford much.
Some social scientists argue that wealthier developed countries continue to
practice a form of colonialism, known as neocolonialism. The affluence of

these countries is based to a large extent on favorable trade with the

developing world. Developed countries have been able to get inexpensive
natural resources from poorer countries in Asia, Africa, and Latin America,
including oil for power, ores and minerals for manufacturing durable goods,
and manufactured goods made by low-wage workers in factories operated by
multinational corporations. This practice contributes to the dependency of
poorer countries while not raising their standards of living.
C -High Standards of Living and Costs of Living
Because people in developed nations may have more wealth and resources
than those in developing countries, their standard of living is also generally
higher. Thus, people who have what would be considered adequate wealth
and resources in developing countries may be considered poor in developed
countries. People in the United States, for example, may expect to make, on
average, about $30,000 each year. They also probably expect to rent an
apartment or own a house with electricity and running water, to be able to
afford to eat and dress well, and to receive quality health care. In addition,
many people aspire to afford discretionary expensesthat is, purchases
unessential to survival, such as cars, higher-priced foods, and entertainment.
In contrast, people in developing countries may consider themselves to be
doing well if they have productive gardens, some livestock, and a house of
thatch or mud-brick. In rural areas, people may be accustomed to not having
plumbing, electricity, or formal health care. By the standards of developed
countries, such living conditions are considered hallmarks of poverty.
Developed countries also tend to have a high cost of living. Even the most
basic lifestyle in these countries, with few or no luxuries, can be relatively
expensive. Most people in the United States, Canada, Japan, Australia,
western European nations, and other developed countries cannot obtain
adequate food, clothing, and shelter without ample amounts of money. In
some areas, even people with jobs that pay the legal minimum wage may
not be able to cover their basic expenses. People who cannot find or
maintain well-paying jobs often have no spare income for discretionary or
emergency expenses, and many rely on government welfare payments to
survive.
D -Inadequate Education and Employment
Illiteracy and lack of education are common in poor countries. Governments
of developing countries often cannot afford to provide for good public
schools, especially in rural areas. Whereas virtually all children in

industrialized countries have access to an education, only about 60 percent

of children in sub-Saharan Africa even attend elementary school. Without
education, most people cannot find income-generating work. Poor people
also often forego schooling in order to concentrate on making a minimal
living. In addition, developing countries tend to have few employment
opportunities, especially for women. As a result, people may see little reason
to go to school.
Even in developed countries, unemployment rates may be high. When
people do not have work, they do not make any money; thus, high
unemployment leads to high levels of poverty. Availability of employment
also tends to fluctuate, creating periods of high joblessness (see Business
Cycle). Countries such as Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Switzerland, and
Luxembourg have managed at times to keep unemployment as low as 2
percent. Unemployment figures during the 1990s in the United States and
most of Europe, on the other hand, ranged from about 5 percent to more
than 20 percent. In countries with high populations, unemployment levels of
only a few percentage points mean that millions of working-age people
cannot find work and earn an adequate income. Because unemployment
figures indicate only the number of people eligible to work who have no job
but are seeking employment, such figures are not necessarily an accurate
indicator of the number of people living in poverty. Other people may not be
able to find enough work or may earn wages too low to support themselves.
E -Environmental Degradation
In many parts of the world, environmental degradationthe deterioration of
the natural environment, including the atmosphere, bodies of water, soil, and
forestsis an important cause of poverty. Environmental problems have led
to shortages of food, clean water, materials for shelter, and other essential
resources. As forests, land, air, and water are degraded, people who live
directly off these natural resources suffer most from the effects. People in
developed countries, on the other hand, have technologies and
conveniences such as air and water filters, refined fuels, and industrially
produced and stored foods to buffer themselves from the effects of
environmental degradation.
Global environmental degradation may result from a variety of factors,
including overpopulation and the resulting overuse of land and other
resources. Intensive farming, for instance, depletes soil fertility, thus
decreasing crop yields. Environmental degradation also results from

pollution. Polluting industries include mining, power generation, and

chemical production. Other major sources of pollution include automobiles
and agricultural fertilizers.
In developing countries, deforestation has had particularly devastating
environmental effects. Many rural people, particularly in tropical regions,
depend on forests as a source of food and other resources, and deforestation
damages or eliminates these supplies. Forests also absorb many pollutants
and water from extended rains; without forests, pollution increases and
massive flooding further decreases the usability of the deforested areas.
F -Economic and Demographic Trends
Poverty in many developed countries can be linked to economic trends. In
the 1950s and 1960s, for example, most people in the United States
experienced strong income growth. Taking inflation into account, average
family income almost doubled during this period. However, between the
early 1970s and the early 1990s typical incomes, adjusted for inflation, grew
little while the cost of living increased. Periods of economic recession tend to
particularly affect young and less-educated people, who may have difficulty
finding jobs that pay enough to support themselves.
Changes in labor markets in developed countries have also contributed to
increased poverty levels. For instance, the number of relatively high-paying
manufacturing jobs has declined, while the demand for workers in serviceand technology-related industries has increased. Historically, people have
learned the skills required for jobs that involve manual labor, such as those
in manufacturing, either on the job or through easily accessible school
vocational programs. As these jobs are replaced by service- and technologyrelated jobsjobs that usually require skills taught at the college level
people who cannot afford a college education find it increasingly difficult to
obtain well-paying work.
In many developed nations the number of people living in poverty has
increased due to rising disparities in the distribution of resources within
these countries. Since the 1970s, for instance, the poorest 20 percent of all
U.S. households have earned an increasingly smaller percentage of the total
national income (generally less than 5 percent) while the wealthiest 5
percent of households have earned an increasingly greater percentage
(about 45 percent of the total). During most of this period, those in the
middle and the bottom of the income distribution have become progressively

worse off as the cost of living has risen.

Some researchers also cite demographic shifts (changes in the makeup of
populations) as contributing to increases in overall poverty. In particular,
demographic shifts have led to increases in poverty among children. In the
United States, for instance, typical family structures have changed
significantly, leading to an increase in single-parent families, which tend to
be poorer. Single-parent families with children have a much more difficult
time escaping poverty than do two-parent families, in which adults can
divide and share childcare and work duties. In 1970 about 87 percent of
children lived with both of their parents, but by the turn of the century this
figure had dropped to 69 percent. The divorce rate in the United States more
than doubled between 1960 and 1980, although it stabilized in the 1980s
and fell somewhat in the 1990s. More importantly, perhaps, the proportion of
children born to unmarried parents grew from about 5 percent in the early
1960s to more than 33 percent by 2000.
G -Individual Responsibility and Welfare Dependency
There are differing beliefs about individual responsibility for poverty. Some
people believe that poverty is a symptom of societal structure and that some
proportion of any society inevitably will be poor. Others feel that poverty
results from a failure of social institutions, such as the labor market and
schools. These people feel that poverty is beyond the control of those who
experience it, but might be remedied if appropriate policies were enacted.
Other people feel that the poor intentionally behave in ways that cause or
perpetuate their poverty. For instance, if people voluntarily choose to use
drugs and this leads them to poverty, it can be argued that they are to
blame for their situation. However, such an argument cannot completely
explain cases in which poverty leads to drug dependence.
In addition, many people in developed countries blame cycles of poverty, or
the tendency for the poor to remain poor, on overly generous welfare
programs. Supporters of this position, including some politicians, argue
against government spending and initiatives to help the poor. They believe
that these programs provide incentives for people to stay poor in order to
continue receiving payments and other support. This argument also suggests
that welfare discourages work and marriage. In the United States and other
developed countries, getting a job results in reduced welfare support; the
same is true when a single parent gets married. However, cash welfare
benefits for the typical poor U.S. family with children fell in value by half

between the early 1970s and the mid-1990s, taking inflation into account.
Such benefits may have been too meager to motivate people to stay on
welfare or to avoid work or marriage.
In the United States, the belief that cash welfare assistance actually
encouraged personal decisions leading to poverty dominated policy
discussions of the 1990s. In response, in 1996 the U.S. Congress created a
new welfare program called Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF).
This program ended the guarantee of cash benefits for poor families with
children, shifted more control to the states, and established stricter work
requirements for recipients. The numbers of poor families with children
receiving cash welfare fell dramatically, from 4.6 million in 1996 to 2.1
million at the end of 2001. The poverty rate for children also fell during the
1990s, from more than 20 percent in the early part of the decade to about 16
percent by the end of the decade. Experts disagree, however, on what drove
the reductions in both welfare caseloads and poverty: changes in welfare
policy or the dynamic economy that prevailed during most of this period.
IV -EFFECTS OF POVERTY
Poverty has wide-ranging and often devastating effects. Many of its effects,
such as poor nutrition and physical health problems, result directly from
having too little income or too few resources. As a result of poor nutrition and
health problems, infant mortality rates among the poor are higher than
average, and life expectancies are lower than average. Other effects of
poverty may include infectious disease, mental illness, and drug
dependence. Some effects of poverty are not as easily understood. For
example, studies link poverty to crime, but by no means are all poor people
also criminals. In many cases, the primary effects of poverty lead to other
problems. Extended hunger and lack of employment, for instance, may lead
to depression, which may sometimes contribute to criminal behavior.
The relationship between poverty and personal or social problems is very
complex. For example, studies of mothers on welfare reveal that those with
multiple problemssuch as depression, substance abuse, and being a victim
of domestic violenceare much less likely to find work and escape poverty.
What is less clear, however, is whether these problems result from the
disadvantages of poverty.
A -Malnutrition and Starvation
Malnutrition is one of the most common effects of poverty. In developing

countries, the poorest people cannot obtain adequate calories to develop or

maintain their appropriate body weight. In Ethiopia, for example, it is
estimated that almost half of all children under the age of 5 suffer from
malnutrition. Poor children in developing countries often suffer the most,
commonly from a deficiency known as protein-energy malnutrition. In these
cases, children lack protein in their diets, especially from an insufficient
amount of mothers milk. Protein-energy malnutrition leads to a variety of
problems, including gastrointestinal disorders, stunted growth, poor mental
development, and high rates of infection. Prolonged malnutrition can lead to
starvation, a condition in which the bodys tissues and organs deteriorate.
Long-term starvation almost always results in death.
In addition to caloric malnutrition, most poor children and adults suffer from
severe vitamin and mineral deficiencies. These deficiencies can lead to
mental disorders; damage to vital organs; failure of the senses, such as poor
vision; problems conceiving or delivering babies; and gastrointestinal
distress.
Even in the major cities of developed nations, the poor often have
unhealthful diets. Resulting in part from a lack of health care and nutritional
education and in part from the lower availability and higher cost of betterquality foods, the urban poor tend to eat too much of the wrong kinds of
foods. The urban poor commonly eat foods that are fatty or fried, high in
sugar and salt, and made of mostly processed carbohydrates. Their diets are
often high in low-grade fatty meats, chips, candies, and desserts and low in
vegetables, fruits, whole grains, and high-quality lean meats and fish. Such
diets commonly cause obesity and hypertension, both of which can
contribute to heart disease and other ailments.
B -Infectious Disease and Exposure to the Elements
In addition to the effects of malnutrition, the poor experience high rates of
infectious disease. Inadequate shelter or housing creates conditions that
promote disease. Without decent protection, many of the poor are exposed
to severe and dangerous weather as well as to bacteria and viruses carried
by other people and animals. In the tropics, monsoons and hurricanes can
destroy the flimsy shelters of the poor. Once exposed, people are vulnerable
to fluctuations in temperature that lower their resistance to disease. They
also are more likely to become infected with diseases carried by insects or
rodents. For instance, mosquitoes carry malaria, a debilitating disease that is
common in the tropics. In arid regions, drought leaves the poor without clean
water for drinking or bathing. In temperate climates, including in the major

cities of developed countries, homelessness is a growing problem. Many of

the homeless poor are harmed by or die of exposure to extreme winter cold.
Inadequate sanitation and unhygienic practices among the poor also lead to
illness. Inadequate sanitation almost always accompanies inadequate
shelter. Because the poor in developing nations commonly have no running
water or sewage facilities, human excrement and garbage accumulate,
quickly becoming a breeding ground for disease. In cities, especially in
ghettoes and shantytowns that house only poor people, overcrowding can
lead to high transmission rates of airborne diseases, such as tuberculosis.
The poor are also often uneducated about the spread of diseases, notably
sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). As a resultand because prophylactic
devices such as condoms may be hard to obtain or afford, especially in
developing countriesSTD rates are high among the poor. In particular, the
incidence of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) among poor
people is higher than average.
Along with the problem of a high incidence of disease, developing countries
also have shortages of doctors. Medicine and treatment are often both
scarce and too expensive for the poor. For example, only 18 percent of
children in Somalia had been immunized against diphtheria, pertussis, and
tetanus in 1999; the comparable rate in the United States was 96 percent. In
addition, many people who live in rural areas of developing countries cannot
get to doctors located in urban areas. In developed countries, the poor may
have no health insurance, making the costs of health care unaffordable.
C -Mental Illness and Drug Dependence
In most developed countries, rates of mental illness are highest among the
poor. The most common disorders associated with poverty are depression
and anxiety disorders. Without meaningful, well-paying work and the
resources and social affirmation that come with it, many poor people develop
low self-esteem and feelings of worthlessness. People who are stressed by
the uncertainty of where they will get their next meal or spend the night
often develop high anxiety. Because the poor experience high rates of severe
mental illness, they also have high rates of suicide.
Some poor people attempt to relieve feelings of anxiety and depression
associated with poverty through the use of mind-altering drugs. A common
drug among the poor is alcohol, which is legal and affordable. Many of those
who drink develop alcoholism, becoming physically and emotionally
dependent on drinking. Others use and often become addicted to more

dangerous and often illegal drugs, including heroin, methamphetamines, and

cocaine. Of these drug users, those who take drugs intravenously (by
injection into a vein) and share needles with others also suffer from high
rates of diseases transmitted through blood and other bodily fluids, including
AIDS.
Mental illness and drug dependence demonstrate the difficulties of
distinguishing between povertys causes and its effects. Mentally ill and
drug-dependent people tend to have trouble holding steady jobs and
maintaining relationships, causing them to fall into poverty. They may also
have difficulty lifting themselves out of poverty. At the same time, in some
cases poverty itself appears to promote mental illness and drug dependence.
D -Crime and Violence
Some experts believe that poverty leads people to commit acts of violence
and crime. Anger, desperation, and the need for money for food, shelter, and
other necessities may all contribute to criminal behavior among the poor.
Other experts caution that the link of cause and effect between poverty and
crime is unclear. In some cases, poverty undoubtedly motivates people to
commit crimes, although it may not be the only factor involved. Other
problems associated with poverty are often linked to crime. For example, to
obtain money some poor people commit the crime of selling illegal drugs;
others may steal to obtain the money to buy drugs on which they are
dependent.
E -Long-Term Effects
People who grow up in poverty may experience lifelong problems because of
it. They are at a disadvantage in things such as education because they have
limited income and resources. All children also need adequate nutrition and
health care for good physical and mental development, and poor children are
often malnourished and sick from a young age. Studies have shown that
people who grow up in persistently poor households experience more
difficulties throughout their lives than those raised in households that are
above the poverty level. Overall, they do not do as well in school, have more
difficulties in marriage, and more frequently become single parents. In
addition, poverty tends to perpetuate itself. In many cases, those who had
poor parents are poor themselves, earning lower-than-average incomes.
They may also have learned a mindset that keeps them from getting out of
poverty. All of these negative long-term effects are much more likely to occur
if children experience prolonged poverty, an unfortunate circumstance much

more likely to affect minority children.

V -POVERTY IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
Many developing nations experience severe and widespread poverty, which
often leads to disease epidemics, starvation, and deaths. In the past few
decades, millions of people have starved and died as a result of famine in
such countries as Bangladesh, Ethiopia, North Korea, Somalia, and Sudan. As
recently as 1998, almost one person in four (23 percent) residing in
developing countries lived on less than $1 a day.
Poverty disproportionately affects women, children, the elderly, and people
with disabilities. In many developing nations, women have low social status
and are restricted in their access to both education and income-generating
work. Without adequate income, they commonly depend on men for support,
but often get little. In some developing countries, including in Southeast Asia
and eastern Europe, poor women seeking to work or immigrate to other
countries are tricked and sold into prostitution or indentured servitude. They
receive little or no pay, and are forced to stay to pay off debts incurred
through their immigration. Many women end up in sweatshopsillegal
factories, usually for making clothing, that have poor working conditions and
long hours. Asian countries such as China, India, Korea, and Thailand have
been widely accused of permitting or encouraging poor families to kill their
female babies, a practice known as female infanticide. These countries are
overpopulated, and their cultures promote the belief that men contribute
more to economies and bring more wealth to their families than do women.
People who do not worksuch as young children, the elderly, and many
people with disabilitiesdepend on families and other support networks for
basic necessities. However, neither poor families nor the governments of
many developing countries can adequately support the nonworking. Poor
children in particular suffer the consequences. Children have
underdeveloped immune systems, and they easily acquire diseases in
unsanitary living conditions. Thus the poorest countries have high rates of
child morbidity (disease) and mortality. Children also have very low social
status, and often suffer from parental neglect and abuse because they are
not considered important. Like women in many developing countries,
children may be exploited as prostitutes or as workers for little or no pay.
Throughout the developing world, ethnic and racial minorities experience
prejudice from majority groups and have difficulty attaining an average
standard of living. For example, under the system of apartheid, enforced in
South Africa from 1948 to the early 1990s, the government systematically

denied rights, fair treatment, and educational and employment opportunities

to nonwhites, leaving them in massive poverty. Migrants and refugees, who
have left their native land and settled elsewhere, also experience high
degrees of poverty. Migrants commonly lose the immediate economic
support of their families and enter into societies in which they may have
difficulty finding good work, especially if they do not speak the language (see
Migration).
A -Africa
Africa includes some of the poorest countries in the world. In much of Africa
south of the Sahara, harsh environmental conditions exacerbate the
conditions of poverty. Dry and barren land covers large expanses of this
region. As the poor try to eke out livings through farming and other
subsistence practices, they exhaust the land, using up the soil nutrients
needed to grow crops. Over time this has led to desertification, a process in
which once fertile land turns to desert. During the late 20th century,
desertification contributed to famines in a number of African nations,
including Somalia, Ethiopia, and Mali. Political instability and wars in many
sub-Saharan countries have also contributed to poverty. As a result of such
factors, the number of people living in extreme poverty in sub-Saharan Africa
grew from 217 million in 1987 to more than 300 million in 1998.
B -South and East Asia
In 1998 Asia (including South Asia, East Asia, and the Pacific region)
accounted for about two-thirds of the worlds 1.2 billion poorest people.
These people all lived on less than $1 per day. South Asiathat is, the Indian
subcontinent, which includes India, Nepal, and Bangladeshhad about 522
million people living in extreme poverty in 1996. India had the greatest
number of poor of any country in the worldmore than 300 million people,
more than one-third of its population. The caste system associated with
Hinduism, the dominant religion in India, helps perpetuate some of this
poverty. This system keeps many families poor from generation to generation
by assigning certain groups of people to low status.
Approximately 267 million people in East and Southeast Asia lived on less
than $1 per day in 1998. China has very large numbers of poor due to the
great size of its rural population. Such Southeast Asian countries as Vietnam,
the Philippines, and Indonesia also rank among the worlds poorest.
Several wars have contributed to poverty in South and East Asia. World War
II (1939-1945) and the wars in Korea (1950-1953) and Vietnam (1959-1975)

damaged land, crops, and forests; prevented many people from making a
living; and killed and dislocated millions. In the late 20th century,
governments and industries around these regions sponsored massive
deforestation, mining, and damming projects that damaged or hindered
access to forests, fields, and water resources. Such projects also forced many
people to abandon their homes and fields, making them more susceptible to
poverty.
C -Latin America
In Latin America (Central America, South America, and the Caribbean), the
poorest people are commonly Native American, people of African ancestry,
and mestizos (persons of mixed Native American and European ancestry).
People of European descent who live in Latin America generally have higher
standards of living. Political instability has contributed to poverty in many
Latin American countries, including Chile, Cuba, Nicaragua, and Panama.
These countries have gone through long periods of military rule or
dictatorship in which leaders have hoarded land and natural resources and
impaired peoples ability to make an adequate living. For many years the
Caribbean country of Haiti has suffered economically from the effects of both
political upheaval and environmental degradation. Brazil has the greatest
number of people living in poverty in all of Latin America. This is in part
because of its size, but also because of encroachment by urban populations
on the land and forest resources of its many native peoples. Large-scale
urban poverty, marked by crowded and unsanitary slums, plagues cities such
as Rio de Janeiro in Brazil and Mexico City. It is estimated that slightly more
than 60 million people in this region of the world lived in extreme poverty in
1998.
D -Eastern Europe and Central Asia
Many countries formerly part of the Communist bloc (the Communist
countries of eastern Europe), including those of the former Soviet Union,
have relatively high levels of poverty. Historians and economists blame the
legacy of Communism for much of the poverty in these countries.
Communist governments owned and distributed most of their countries
property and resources. Leaders of these governments proclaimed the
benefits of this centralized system, but many people who lived under
Communism experienced lower standards of living than people who lived in
countries with democratic governments and free-market economies, such as
the United States and the nations of western Europe.

Since the fall of Communism in 1989, poverty in much of eastern Europe and
Central Asia has increased. The number of people living in extreme poverty
in these areas grew from 1.1 million in 1987 to an estimated 17.6 million in
1998. The fall of Communism ended a political and economic system in
which all people had been virtually guaranteed jobs and basic needs, such as
food and housing. Sudden uncertainty about the future led to decreases in
the value of currencies in all formerly Communist countries. Wars and
instability ravaged many of these countries. In the most devastating conflict,
the former Yugoslavia erupted in violent civil war in 1991 (see Yugoslav
Succession, Wars of). In several formerly Communist countries, political and
economic upheaval has led to a wide array of problems, including a dramatic
increase in the number of orphaned children. The high number of orphans
has stretched the capacity of orphanages, and many orphans live in extreme
poverty and suffer from malnutrition, disease, and starvation.
VI -POVERTY IN DEVELOPED COUNTRIES
The nature of poverty in the developed world differs greatly from that in the
developing world. In developed countries, the majority of people commonly
earn over 200 times the per capita (per person) income of the poorest
developing countries. For this reason, developed nations usually measure the
income level of poverty as a portion of average income or as an amount
below which a person or family cannot afford basic needs, including housing.
For people with low or no income, poverty often takes the form of
homelessness; those in less extreme poverty often live in substandard and
sometimes dangerous housing. Many of the poor in developed countries are
also exposed to high levels of violence associated with drug dealing, spouse
or child abuse, and other crime.
For reasons that are only partly understood, the United States has higher
rates of poverty than most other developed countries. A study of 16
developed nations conducted in the early 1990s used a single measure for
comparison: Poverty was defined as earning below half the median (middle)
of all incomes. The results showed that about 19 percent of the U.S.
population lives in some degree of poverty. The rates were between 10 and
15 percent in Australia, Canada, Ireland, Japan, Spain, and the United
Kingdom. Many of the other countries of western Europeincluding Belgium,
France, Germany, Italy, The Netherlands, and the Scandinavian countries
(Finland, Norway, and Sweden)all had poverty rates of between 5 and 8
percent.

Poverty rates in some developed countries, including the United States and
the United Kingdom, are higher among racial minorities. Indigenous people in
developed countries also tend to suffer from very high rates of poverty. In
the United States, many Native Americans live and work on economically
depressed Native American reservations and experience high rates of
joblessness and alcoholism. In Australia, many Aboriginal people live in
similar conditions (see Aboriginal Australians).
A -The United States
In 2001 the Census Bureau reported about 33 million residents living in
poverty in the United States, or about 12 percent of the total population.
About 6.8 million families, or 9 percent of all U.S. families, lived in poverty in
2001. These poverty rates were similar to those of the 1970s, but were about
half of the historically high rates of the early 1960s. While little seems to
have changed in aggregate, or total, levels of U.S. poverty since the 1970s,
the composition of the people living in poverty has changed significantly.
That is, the probability of being poor has changed significantly across
demographic groups, which are based on age, race, family status, and
geographic location. Some groups of people are now much more likely to be
poor than in the past while other groups are less likely to be poor.
The census divides the total U.S. population into three basic age groups:
children (up through 17 years of age), prime-aged adults (18 years to 64
years), and the elderly (65 years of age and over). About 16 percent of
children were poor in 2001, more than in any other age group. Poverty
among prime-aged adults, who generally work, has fluctuated with changes
in the U.S. economy. In 1996, when the economy was performing well, about
10 percent of prime-aged adults lived in poverty. The numbers of elderly
living in poverty dropped dramatically between 1959 and 2001, from over 30
percent to around 10 percent.
An estimated 8 percent of whites of all ages (not including those of Hispanic
origin) were poor in 2001. By contrast, more than one in five blacks (23
percent) and about the same proportion of Hispanics (21 percent) lived in
poverty. Blacks and Hispanics are the largest U.S. minority groups, and most
smaller groups, including Asians, experience less poverty. However, because
of the different sizes of these groups in the United States, whites make up
the largest percentage of the poor overall. In 2001 about 6 percent of all
married couples were poor. On the other hand, 35 percent of single-mother
households lived in poverty at this time. Rates were even higher for Hispanic
(43 percent) and black (42 percent) single-mother households.

Higher percentages of people are poor in the southern and western parts of
the country than in the Northeast and Midwest. One reason for this
difference may be that the South and West contain more, and more sparsely
populated, rural areas, which have fewer higher wage jobs. Poverty is more
prevalent in rural areas, and also in central cities, than it is in suburbs.
Although pockets of high poverty exist, poor people live in all areas of the
United States.
B -Other Developed Countries
There are many factors that might account for the differences in rates of
poverty among developed countries. Some countries, such as the United
Kingdom, have greatly imbalanced income distributions. In these countries, a
relatively small proportion of the population has a large share of money,
property, and other resources. This imbalance can make the overall median
income fairly high, with the result that more people earn less than the
median. In many developed countries, the wealthiest people have money
and other resources that might otherwise be available to the rest of society.
The great ethnic and racial diversity of countries such as Australia, Canada,
and the United Kingdom may also contribute to high poverty rates because
minority groups tend to have low social and economic status. The
Scandinavian countries, which have the lowest poverty rates of all developed
countries, have fairly homogenous populations.
Differences in the history and scope of social welfare systems among
developed countries also may contribute to differences in their poverty rates.
For instance Spain and Japan have welfare systems that are not well
established or expansive; the poverty rates in these countries are moderate.
On the other hand, most of the countries of western Europe and, in
particular, the Scandinavian countries, have mature, large social welfare
systems that provide a great deal of support for people who have inadequate
income. The Scandinavian countries, whose unemployment rates are
generally far higher than their poverty rates, have both substantial social
welfare systems and relatively equal distributions of income. For example, in
the mid-1990s, the estimated child poverty rate in the United States was
about seven times the rate measured in Sweden.
VII -MEASURING POVERTY
How people and institutions portray and try to cope with poverty depends to
a considerable extent on how poverty is measured. The differences between
relative poverty (having less than others) and absolute poverty (not having

enough to survive) are great. However, there are a wide variety of options for
measuring wealth and well-being and for establishing lines that separate the
poor from the nonpoor. Economists have traditionally chosen income as the
basis for measuring and defining poverty, but even that choice allows for a
multitude of options. While no one measure is necessarily correct, experts
argue that some are better than others.
A -International Measurements
In international economics, such as in statistics kept by the United Nations
(UN), the measure of a countrys wealth is generally based on its gross
domestic product (GDP). GDP measures the aggregate yearly monetary
income of all of a countrys people and businesses. For the purposes of
figuring poverty levels, GDP figures are usually calculated as GDP
(sometimes referred to as income) per capita. If two countries have the same
aggregate GDP, the one with a smaller population will have a higher GDP per
capita. In other words, each person in the smaller country has a greater
share of the total national income.
In the 1990s developed countries typically enjoyed average per capita yearly
incomes in excess of $15,000 and often $20,000. At the other extreme, the
poorest countries often had per capita yearly incomes substantially under
$1,000. For example, according to one figure, the per capita income in
Mozambique, a country in southeastern Africa and one of the worlds poorest
countries, was about $100 at the end of the 1990s. While people with such
low incomes might be able to produce or obtain some food and other basic
needs, they generally have difficulty providing for themselves.
Levels of poverty also depend on how income and resources are distributed.
Countries with high GDPs can have low levels of poverty if people have
relatively equal amounts of income and resources, such as in Scandinavia.
On the other hand, countries with equally high GDPs will have higher poverty
rates if a few people have far more income and resources than the rest. The
United States is such a country.
B -U.S. Poverty Measurements
Each year the Bureau of the Census publishes the official poverty figures of
the United States. People are said to be poor if their incomes fall below a
certain level called a threshold, also known as the poverty line. In this
definition, the poor do not have enough income to purchase or have easy
access to basic goods and services, such as food, clothing, housing,
transportation, and education. The official U.S. poverty rate equals the

number of people whose incomes fall below the poverty threshold divided by
the number of people counted in the census. Rates are also determined for
various groupings within the population, such as sex, age, and race.
A staff economist in the Social Security Administration (SSA), Mollie
Orshansky, established the first U.S. poverty thresholds in the early 1960s.
They were calculated as the cost of a minimum adequate diet (the least
expensive of four nutritionally adequate food plans developed by the U.S
Department of Agriculture) multiplied by three to account for other
expenses, such as clothing, housing, and medical costs. Since then, the
thresholds have only been updated to account for inflation in the prices of
basic goods and services (see Inflation and Deflation).
The poverty line does not, however, change in real dollars (value in terms of
what the dollar can purchase). In principle, the 2001 threshold of $17,960 for
a family of four (two adults and two children) represents the same
purchasing power as the 1963 threshold value of about $3,100 for the same
type of family. Also, in contrast with the governments of most developed
countries, the U.S. government does not adjust poverty thresholds up or
down with changes in overall average income.
The government determines poverty status by comparing an individuals or
familys income to a threshold limit. This calculation defines income as
money earned before taxes, plus transfers (grants to the poor) of cash from
the government. Welfare payments, therefore, can put people above the
poverty level. The thresholds vary according to family size, peoples age, and
family composition. They do not change, however, across geographic
regions, even though the costs of living in different parts of the country can
vary widely.
The government uses Census Bureau figures to determine how many people
qualify for public assistance programs for the poor. Different poverty
thresholds apply to people in different living situations. For example, the U.S.
poverty threshold in 2001 was $8,494 for a single individual under the age of
65 with no dependents, rising to $39,223 for a nine-person household. The
official poverty threshold for a typical struggling family of a single mother
with two children was $14,269 in 2001.
In 1995 an expert panel organized by the National Academy of Sciences
proposed many changes in the way the U.S. government measures poverty.
Foremost among these changes was a plan to gauge poverty each year
according to how much the average person or family spends on goods and

services. The existing measurement relies on government definitions of basic

goods and services developed in 1967. A new measurement would be a step
toward defining U.S. poverty based on standards of living rather than only on
costs of living. No changes have yet been implemented.
C -Other Concepts of Poverty
Several other options exist in addition to definitions of poverty based on GDP
per capita or on threshold income. Some developed countries, such as most
nations of the European Union, define poverty as having significantly fewer
resources than average, generally less than half of typical earnings or
income. This definition bases the poverty figure on mean (average) or
median (the middle) income. These types of measurements contrast with the
U.S. poverty line, which is derived from the value of basic consumption
rather than from average incomes. For example, the U.S. poverty line for an
individual amounted to only about 36 percent of typical earnings in 1996.
Another measure of poverty defines it in terms of human capitalthat is, a
persons earning potential (generally related to work skills). From this
perspective, people with relatively high earning potentials are not poor
because they should be able to easily find work. People can increase their
skill levels and earning potentials in a variety of ways, such as by attending
college, entering an apprenticeship program, or participating in an on-the-job
or workplace-sponsored training program. If the job market changes, new
skills may become valuable and old ones less in demand, as has happened
with the introduction of computers to the workplace. Some governments
have considered human capital problems in their attempts to reduce poverty.
Changes in the U.S. welfare system in 1996, for example, included a
mandate to take money that had previously been budgeted for welfare
transfers and channel it to job-training programs.
While income and skills can be measured fairly easily, other definitions of
poverty are based on more subjective concepts. A basic subjective definition
of poverty is that people are poor if they believe they do not have enough
resources. Studies have shown, for example, that when people say they are
poor, they tend to spend more on basic goods, such as food, and less on
discretionary items, such as televisions or cars. Other subjective definitions
of poverty focus on peoples quality of life. Quality-of-life measures might
include the opportunity to freely choose professions and lifestyles, the right
to receive a full and free education, and freedom from political oppression.
The United Nations Development Program (UNDP) annually publishes The
Human Development Report, which ranks the degree of poverty in different

countries using quality-of-life measures such as these.

VIII -ANTIPOVERTY PROGRAMS
National governments use poverty measurements to develop programs that
provide assistance to the poor. All developed countries have extensive
antipoverty programs, primarily in the form of social security and welfare
systems. Most developing countries have some form of social security, but
these programs typically do not provide enough to keep many people out of
poverty. International organizations also use poverty measurements to
decide how much money to give to national governments and how to advise
countries on strategies for reducing poverty.
A -Fighting Poverty in Developing Countries
The governments of most developing countries provide limited assistance to
prevent some poverty. Most have at least minimal social security programs,
which provide benefits during periods of unemployment, illness, or disability;
at retirement; and to the families of deceased workers. These programs
usually provide support only for people who are employed full-timea very
small percentage of the population in most developing countries. Some
countries, such as Bangladesh and Nepal, provide mandatory full support
only to government employees. A variety of organizations support
antipoverty programs in developing countries. They include (1) international
government organizations, such as the UN, (2) aid agencies run by
developed countries, (3) nongovernmental (mostly nonprofit) organizations,
and (4) private development banks.
A1 -International Government Organizations
Many international governmental organizations have antipoverty programs.
These include many regional organizations, such as the Organization of
American States and the European Union, as well as the UN, which
encompasses countries around the world. The UN operates many of the
largest antipoverty programs through its branch agencies. The UN
Development Program runs a variety of programs in developing countries to
increase literacy rates, create jobs, share technologies from developed
countries with developing countries, protect the environment and natural
resources, and ensure womens rights. Other UN agencies involved in
alleviating poverty in the developing world include the United Nations
Childrens Fund, which provides food, medicine, and education programs for
children worldwide, and the United Nations Food and Agriculture
Organization, which supports increased agricultural productivity and

improved food distribution and nutrition.

A2 -Government Aid Agencies
The governments of all developed nations have agencies devoted to
international economic assistance. These agencies lend or grant money to
developing countries and also operate antipoverty programs in those
countries. The United States Agency for International Development (USAID),
an arm of the State Department, sponsors many efforts similar to those run
by the UNDP. Economic and other kinds of assistance given to one nation by
another, known as bilateral aid, have humanitarian as well as political and
economic aims. For instance, AID designs many of its programs to reduce
human suffering from poverty; the same programs may also aim to decrease
the power of unfriendly and undemocratic governments and to increase free
trade, which are politically and economically beneficial goals for the United
States. Multilateral aid, such as that provided jointly by the many countries
belonging to the UN, has more directly humanitarian aims. For instance, the
UN and its member countries support democratic governments based
essentially on the belief that democracy improves peoples well-being.
A3 -Nongovernmental Organizations
Nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) operate with support from private
citizens and foundations, volunteer workers, and government grants.
Developing countries themselves run some NGOs. Other NGOs operate out of
developed countries and are often associated with large church
organizations. International NGOs that work to alleviate poverty in the
developing world include Cooperative for Assistance and Relief Everywhere,
Inc. (CARE), Oxfam International, and Catholic Relief Services, all of which
sponsor programs that provide health services, food, education, and
economic support. Doctors Without Borders and the Red Cross both provide
medical assistance in poor countries, especially during crises such as
famines, wars, and disease epidemics.
A4 -Private Development Banks
Private development banks provide loans on favorable terms to governments
or citizens of developing countries. They do not give grants or charitable
donations. Like NGOs, some of these banks operate within developing
countries. Bangladeshs Grameen Bank, one of the best-known small private
development banks, has made small loans to thousands of citizens
experiencing hardship, including women who would otherwise have difficulty
accessing funds because of their social status. The World Bank (see

International Bank for Reconstruction and Development), the best-known

large private development bank, operates internationally and has its
headquarters in the United States. The World Bank makes large loans to
governments of developing countries to finance projects intended to
strengthen the economies of these nations. World Bank-financed projects
have included building roads, dams for power generation, and industries.
B -U.S. Antipoverty Programs
A number of U.S. government agencies use poverty statistics to decide how
much to spend on welfare programs and transfers of money, goods, and
services to help the poor. Federal programs that aim directly at helping poor
people in the United States include Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
(TANF), which provides short-term cash benefits to many unemployed adults
with children; Supplemental Security Income (SSI), which provides extra
income to poor people who are elderly, have disabilities, or are visually
impaired (see Social Security); Medicaid, which provides health care to those
unable to afford to buy health insurance (see Medicare and Medicaid); the
Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), which reduces the amount of federal tax
owed by low-income working families and can result in a refund check for
those who owe no taxes; and the Child Tax Credit, which provides tax credits
of $600 per eligible child and may result in a refund check for poor families.
The U.S. government also has invested heavily in strengthening the child
support enforcement system, resulting in increased collections of child
support from parents not living with their children.
In addition to the Census Bureaus official poverty thresholds used for
guiding welfare programs, the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS) publishes a set of poverty guidelines. For 2002, in the
continental United States, HHS poverty guidelines allowed targeted
(restricted) benefits to go to individuals with incomes below $8,860 and
families with incomes lower than that figure plus $3,080 for each additional
person in the family. These guidelines are simplifications of the Census
Bureau thresholds and are used for determining eligibility in a number of
programs targeted to low-income groups. Such targeted programs include
Head Start, a supplemental education program for young children of poor
families; Food Stamps, a program that provides vouchers for the purchase of
food; the National School Lunch Program, which pays for poor students
meals in public schools; and the Low-Income Energy Assistance Program,
which subsidizes the expense of electric and heating bills for poor people. For
more information on U.S. antipoverty programs and their history, see

Welfare: Early Welfare Programs in the United States and Welfare:

Development of the Modern U.S. Welfare System.
In addition to government programs, many NGOs in the United States
provide aid to the poor at local, state, and national levels. One of the largest
national NGOs addressing the problems of poverty is the United Way, which
provides a variety of types of assistance to people in need. Habitat for
Humanity, another NGO with programs throughout the country, recruits
volunteers to build affordable housing for the poor.
Kyto Protocol

Kyto Protocol, international treaty adopted in 1997 that sets concrete

targets for developed countries to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions that
contribute to global warming, also known as climate change. The Kyto
Protocol is a supplementary treaty to the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and went into force in February
2005. More than 130 countries are party to it, with this figure set to rise; so
far, however, the United States has refused to ratify the treaty.
Under the Kyto Protocol, developed, or industrialized, countries are subject
to legally binding commitments to curb their emissions of the six main
greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide,
hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. The targets
are based mostly on the emission levels of these pollutants in 1990. In
general the treaty calls for industrialized nations to reduce their greenhouse
gas emissions by 5 percent below 1990 levels. The target goals must be
accomplished by 2012, and commitments to start achieving the targets
begin in 2008. Developing countriesthat is, most countries in Africa, Asia,
and Latin Americaare only subject to general commitments.
The Kyto Protocol is a flexible treaty, allowing individual governments to
decide what specific policies and reforms to implement to meet their
commitments. It also allows countries to offset some of their emissions by
increasing the carbon dioxide absorbed, or sequestered, by trees and other
vegetation. However, eligible sequestration activities, and the amount of
offsetting allowed, are tightly controlled. In addition, the Kyto Protocol
established three market-based mechanisms to help bring down the costs of

lowering emissions. These mechanisms are known as joint implementation,

the clean development mechanism (CDM), and emissions trading. Under joint
implementation and the CDM, a country can invest in a project to curb
emissions in another country, where it is cheaper to do so, and thereby
acquire the resulting credit to offset against its own target. Under emissions
trading, a country that exceeds its own target of lowering emissions can
transfer the surplus credits to another country that is finding it more difficult
to reduce its emissions. Developing countries can participate, but only
through the CDM. Safeguards are in place to ensure that emission credits are
genuine.
Developed countries are subject to stringent reporting requirements, and a
compliance committee considers any suspected noncompliance. Countries
commit to achieve a certain level of their target goal beginning in 2008. Any
country that fails to meet its emissions target may be penalized by having to
meet a proportionally higher target for the following commitment period and
by having to prepare an action plan to show how emissions will be reined in.
The entry into force of the Kyto Protocol was delayed for several years while
countries finalized its details. A package of decisions, known as the
Marrakech Accords, was finally agreed to in 2001, setting out in detail how
the protocols rules and mechanisms will work. Implementation is now
underway, with the CDM already operational. Many businesses are especially
keen to participate in the market mechanisms, and the European Union (EU)
launched a regional emissions trading system in January 2005. Meeting the
protocols targets, however, will be a challenge for many countries.
Talks are due to start soon on next steps in the international effort to control
climate change. Key controversial issues will include when and how to
negotiate stronger commitments for developing countries, and how to secure
the participation of the United States. Under the administration of
Democratic president Bill Clinton, the United States supported the protocol
but never submitted it to Congress for ratification because of opposition from
the Republican Party. When Republican George W. Bush became president in
2001, the United States withdrew its support for the protocol. Bush claimed
that the treaty would harm the U.S. economy and was unfair to industrialized
nations because developing countries were not required to control their
emissions.
ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHEAST ASIAN NATIONS

ESTABLISHMENT
The Association of Southeast Asian Nations or ASEAN was established on 8
August 1967 in Bangkok by the five original Member Countries, namely,
Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand. Brunei Darussalam
joined on 8 January 1984, Vietnam on 28 July 1995, Lao PDR and Myanmar
on 23 July 1997, and Cambodia on 30 April 1999.
As of 2006, the ASEAN region has a population of about 560 million, a total
area of 4.5 million square kilometers, a combined gross domestic product of
almost US$ 1,100 billion, and a total trade of about US$ 1,400 billion.
OBJECTIVES
The ASEAN Declaration states that the aims and purposes of the Association
are:
(1) to accelerate economic growth, social progress and cultural development
in the region and
(2) to promote regional peace and stability through abiding respect for
justice and the rule of law in the relationship among countries in the region
and adherence to the principles of the United Nations Charter.
The ASEAN Vision 2020, adopted by the ASEAN Leaders on the 30th
Anniversary of ASEAN, agreed on a shared vision of ASEAN as a concert of
Southeast Asian nations, outward looking, living in peace, stability and
prosperity, bonded together in partnership in dynamic development and in a
community of caring societies.
In 2003, the ASEAN Leaders resolved that an ASEAN Community shall be
established comprising three pillars, namely, ASEAN Security Community,
ASEAN Economic Community and ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community.
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES
ASEAN Member Countries have adopted the following fundamental principles
in their relations with one another, as contained in the Treaty of Amity and
Cooperation in Southeast Asia (TAC):

mutual respect for the independence, sovereignty, equality, territorial

integrity, and national identity of all nations;
* the right of every State to lead its national existence free from external
interference, subversion or coercion;
* non-interference in the internal affairs of one another;
* settlement of differences or disputes by peaceful manner; renunciation of
the threat or use of force; and
* effective cooperation among themselves.
ASEAN SECURITY COMMUNITY
Through political dialogue and confidence building, no tension has escalated
into armed confrontation among ASEAN Member Countries since its
establishment more than three decades ago.
To build on what has been constructed over the years in the field of political
and security cooperation, the ASEAN Leaders have agreed to establish the
ASEAN Security Community (ASC). The ASC shall aim to ensure that
countries in the region live at peace with one another and with the world in a
just, democratic and harmonious environment.
The members of the Community pledge to rely exclusively on peaceful
processes in the settlement of intra-regional differences and regard their
security as fundamentally linked to one another and bound by geographic
location, common vision and objectives. It has the following components:
political development; shaping and sharing of norms; conflict prevention;
conflict resolution; post-conflict peace building; and implementing
mechanisms. It will be built on the strong foundation of ASEAN processes,
principles, agreements, and structures, which evolved over the years and are
contained in the following major political agreements:
* ASEAN Declaration, Bangkok, 8 August 1967;
* Zone of Peace, Freedom and Neutrality Declaration, Kuala Lumpur, 27
November 1971;

* Declaration of ASEAN Concord, Bali, 24 February 1976;

* Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia, Bali, 24 February 1976;
* ASEAN Declaration on the South China Sea, Manila, 22 July 1992;
* Treaty on the Southeast Asia Nuclear Weapon-Free Zone, Bangkok, 15
December 1997;
* ASEAN Vision 2020, Kuala Lumpur, 15 December 1997; and
* Declaration of ASEAN Concord II, Bali, 7 October 2003.
In recognition of security interdependence in the Asia-Pacific region, ASEAN
established the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) in 1994. The ARFs agenda
aims to evolve in three broad stages, namely the promotion of confidence
building, development of preventive diplomacy and elaboration of
approaches to conflicts.
The present participants in the ARF include: Australia, Brunei Darussalam,
Cambodia, Canada, China, European Union, India, Indonesia, Japan,
Democratic Republic of Korea, Republic of Korea (ROK), Lao PDR, Malaysia,
Mongolia, Myanmar, New Zealand, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, the
Philippines, the Russian Federation, Singapore, Thailand, the United States,
and Viet Nam.
The ARF discusses major regional security issues in the region, including the
relationship amongst the major powers, non-proliferation, counter-terrorism,
transnational crime, South China Sea and the Korean Peninsula, among
others.
ASEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
The ASEAN Economic Community shall be the end-goal of economic
integration measures as outlined in the ASEAN Vision 2020. Its goal is to
create a stable, prosperous and highly competitive ASEAN economic region
in which there is a free flow of goods, services, investment and a freer flow of
capital, equitable economic development and reduced poverty and socioeconomic disparities in year 2020.

The ASEAN Economic Community shall establish ASEAN as a single market

and production base, turning the diversity that characterises the region into
opportunities for business complementation and making the ASEAN a more
dynamic and stronger segment of the global supply chain. ASEANs strategy
shall consist of the integration of ASEAN and enhancing ASEANs economic
competitiveness.
In moving towards the ASEAN Economic Community, ASEAN has
agreed on the following:
* institute new mechanisms and measures to strengthen the implementation
of its existing economic initiatives including the ASEAN Free Trade Area
(AFTA), ASEAN Framework Agreement on Services (AFAS) and ASEAN
Investment Area (AIA);
* accelerate regional integration in the following priority sectors by 2010: air
travel, agro-based products, automotives, e-commerce, electronics, fisheries,
healthcare, rubber-based products, textiles and apparels, tourism, and woodbased products.
* facilitate movement of business persons, skilled labour and talents; and
* strengthen the institutional mechanisms of ASEAN, including the
improvement of the existing ASEAN Dispute Settlement Mechanism to ensure
expeditious and legally-binding resolution of any economic disputes.
Launched in 1992, the ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA) is now in place. It aims
to promote the regions competitive advantage as a single production unit.
The elimination of tariff and non-tariff barriers among Member Countries is
expected to promote greater economic efficiency, productivity, and
competitiveness.
As of 1 January 2005, tariffs on almost 99 percent of the products in the
Inclusion List of the ASEAN-6 (Brunei Darussalam, Indonesia, Malaysia, the
Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand) have been reduced to no more than 5
percent. More than 60 percent of these products have zero tariffs. The
average tariff for ASEAN-6 has been brought down from more than 12
percent when AFTA started to 2 percent today. For the newer Member
Countries, namely, Cambodia, Lao PDR, Myanmar, and Viet Nam (CLMV),
tariffs on about 81 percent of their Inclusion List have been brought down to
within the 0-5 percent range.

Other major integration-related economic activities of ASEAN

include the following:
* Roadmap for Financial and Monetary Integration of ASEAN in four areas,
namely, capital market development, capital account liberalisation,
liberalisation of financial services and currency cooperation;
* trans-ASEAN transportation network consisting of major inter-state highway
and railway networks, including the Singapore to Kunming Rail-Link, principal
ports, and sea lanes for maritime traffic, inland waterway transport, and
major civil aviation links;
* Roadmap for Integration of Air Travel Sector;
* interoperability and interconnectivity of national telecommunications
equipment and services, including the ASEAN Telecommunications
Regulators Council Sectoral Mutual Recognition Arrangement (ATRC-MRA) on
Conformity Assessment for Telecommunications Equipment;
* trans-ASEAN energy networks, which consist of the ASEAN Power Grid and
the Trans-ASEAN Gas Pipeline Projects;
* Initiative for ASEAN Integration (IAI) focusing on infrastructure, human
resource development, information and communications technology, and
regional economic integration primarily in the CLMV countries;
* Visit ASEAN Campaign and the private sector-led ASEAN Hip-Hop Pass to
promote intra-ASEAN tourism; and
* Agreement on the ASEAN Food Security Reserve.
ASEAN SOCIO-CULTURAL COMMUNITY
The ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community, in consonance with the goal set by
ASEAN Vision 2020, envisages a Southeast Asia bonded together in
partnership as a community of caring societies and founded on a common
regional identity.
The Community shall foster cooperation in social development aimed at

raising the standard of living of disadvantaged groups and the rural

population, and shall seek the active involvement of all sectors of society, in
particular women, youth, and local communities. ASEAN shall ensure that its
work force shall be prepared for, and benefit from, economic integration by
investing more resources for basic and higher education, training, science
and technology development, job creation, and social protection.
ASEAN shall further intensify cooperation in the area of public health,
including in the prevention and control of infectious and communicable
diseases. The development and enhancement of human resources is a key
strategy for employment generation, alleviating poverty and socio-economic
disparities, and ensuring economic growth with equity.
Among the on-going activities of ASEAN in this area include the
following:
* ASEAN Work Programme for Social Welfare, Family, and Population;
* ASEAN Work Programme on HIV/AIDS;
* ASEAN Work Programme on Community-Based Care for the Elderly;
* ASEAN Occupational Safety and Health Network;
* ASEAN Work Programme on Preparing ASEAN Youth for Sustainable
Employment and Other Challenges of Globalisation;
* ASEAN University Network (AUN) promoting collaboration among seventeen
member universities ASEAN;
*ASEAN Students Exchange Programme, Youth Cultural Forum, and the
ASEAN Young Speakers Forum;
* The Annual ASEAN Culture Week, ASEAN Youth Camp and ASEAN Quiz;
* ASEAN Media Exchange Programme; and
* Framework for Environmentally Sustainable Cities (ESC) and ASEAN
Agreement on Transboundary Haze Pollution.
EXTERNAL RELATIONS
The ASEAN Vision 2020 affirmed an outward-looking ASEAN playing a pivotal
role in the international community and advancing ASEANs common

interests.
Building on the Joint Statement on East Asia Cooperation of 1999,
cooperation between the Southeast and Northeast Asian countries has
accelerated with the holding of an annual summit among the leaders of
ASEAN, China, Japan, and the Republic of Korea (ROK) within the ASEAN Plus
Three process.
ASEAN Plus Three relations continue to expand and deepen in the areas of
security dialogue and cooperation, transnational crime, trade and
investment, environment, finance and monetary, agriculture and forestry,
energy, tourism, health, labour, culture and the arts, science and technology,
information and communication technology, social welfare and development,
youth, and rural development and poverty eradication. There are now
thirteen ministerial-level meetings under the ASEAN Plus Three process.
Bilateral trading arrangements have been or are being forged between
ASEAN Member Countries and China, Japan, and the ROK. These
arrangements will serve as the building blocks of an East Asian Free Trade
Area as a long term goal.
ASEAN continues to develop cooperative relations with its Dialogue Partners,
namely, Australia, Canada, China, the European Union, India, Japan, the ROK,
New Zealand, the Russian Federation, the United States of America, and the
United Nations Development Programme. ASEAN also promotes cooperation
with Pakistan in some areas of mutual interest.

Consistent with its resolve to enhance cooperation with other developing

regions, ASEAN maintains contact with other inter-governmental
organisations, namely, the Economic Cooperation Organisation, the Gulf
Cooperation Council, the Rio Group, the South Asian Association for Regional
Cooperation, the South Pacific Forum, and through the recently established
Asian-African Sub-Regional Organisation Conference. Most ASEAN Member
Countries also participate actively in the activities of the Asia-Pacific
Economic Cooperation (APEC), the Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM), and the East
Asia-Latin America Forum (EALAF).
STRUCTURES AND MECHANISMS
The highest decision-making organ of ASEAN is the Meeting of the ASEAN

Heads of State and Government. The ASEAN Summit is convened every year.
The ASEAN Ministerial Meeting (Foreign Ministers) is held annually.
Ministerial meetings on the following sectors are also held regularly:
agriculture and forestry, economics (trade), energy, environment, finance,
health, information, investment, labour, law, regional haze, rural
development and poverty alleviation, science and technology, social welfare,
telecommunications, transnational crime, transportation, tourism, youth.
Supporting these ministerial bodies are committees of senior officials,
technical working groups and task forces.
To support the conduct of ASEANs external relations, ASEAN has established
committees composed of heads of diplomatic missions in the following
capitals: Beijing, Berlin, Brussels, Canberra, Geneva, Islamabad, London,
Moscow, New Delhi, New York, Ottawa, Paris, Riyadh, Seoul, Tokyo,
Washington D.C. and Wellington.
The Secretary-General of ASEAN is appointed on merit and accorded
ministerial status. The Secretary-General of ASEAN, who has a five-year
term, is mandated to initiate, advise, coordinate, and implement ASEAN
activities. The members of the professional staff of the ASEAN Secretariat are
appointed on the principle of open recruitment and region-wide competition.
ASEAN has several specialized bodies and arrangements promoting
inter-governmental cooperation in various fields including the
following:
ASEAN Agricultural Development Planning Centre, ASEAN-EC Management
Centre, ASEAN Centre for Energy, ASEAN Earthquake Information Centre,
ASEAN Foundation, ASEAN Poultry Research and Training Centre, ASEAN
Regional Centre for Biodiversity Conservation, ASEAN Rural Youth
Development Centre, ASEAN Specialized Meteorological Centre, ASEAN
Timber Technology Centre, ASEAN Tourism Information Centre, and the
ASEAN University Network.
In addition, ASEAN promotes dialogue and consultations with professional
and business organisations with related aims and purposes, such as the
ASEAN-Chambers of Commerce and Industry, ASEAN Business Forum, ASEAN
Tourism Association, ASEAN Council on Petroleum, ASEAN Ports Association,
Federation of ASEAN Shipowners, ASEAN Confederation of Employers, ASEAN
Fisheries Federation, ASEAN Vegetable Oils Club, ASEAN Intellectual Property

Association, and the ASEAN-Institutes for Strategic and International Studies.

Furthermore, there are 58 Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), which
have formal affiliations with ASEAN.