PSIR-Class-163-International Relations (Paper-2) (Part-A and B Integrated)

American president Woodro Wilson. He was

the person who created the concept of

collective security. Now what is the

meaning of collective security as

envisaged by you know Woodro Wilson?

Woodro Wilson said key collective

security is a concept where all the

states

they come together to establish an

understanding and that understanding is

that if there is any one state attacked

by any aggressor

all these states that have an

understanding will try to retaliate

against that state.

So what is the idea here? The idea here

is that if there is an attack on one

country, all countries which are part of

the collective security, they will

undertake protection

of that country which is attacked by

giving it all military support and

fighting for it also.

Now please understand with one thing

this concept was something that is

attributed to Woodro Wilson but in fact

Woodro Wilson in his book has also

mentioned that this concept is something

that he has borrowed from Otoan Bismar

the German leader

Bismar

to Bismar was actually the person

who had created this concept and Bismar

was the one who stated that collective

security is crucial and he was the one

who basically created collective

security

agreements in Europe from 1870 onwards.

Aa now beta the next important point to

understand is what if collective

security is all about

ensuring that there is a group of

countries who have a understanding and

these group of countries have come

together on some understanding

then there is also an important point to

understand here these countries that

come together on some understanding

to help another country

in this sense we say that collective

security was the precursor to alliance

formation

because even in alliance the same thing

happens kay in alliance what happens is

a group of countries will come together

they will become allies they will try to

protect each other from a common

aggressor so what we are trying to say

is that collective security's

intellectual precursor is basically

alliance

and please understand better another

important thing now alliance collective

security are concepts

that help us to maintain balance of

power

by collective security was envisaged for

what purpose? It was envisaged for the

purpose of maintaining balance of power.

If collective security was envisaged for

maintaining balance of power then beta

one thing is very clear that whenever a

group of countries will come together

and they say that okay we will protect

this country or any country who is a

part of this group from any aggression

then the idea is that they are all

collectively accumulating power.

If they are all collectively

accumulating power, this collective

accumulation of power is also done with

the larger objective of

ensuring

that there is a balance in the

international systems.

So it started with Bismar got formal

terminology with Woodro Wilson

but the idea is that there are three

concepts associated with collective

security which is alliance collective

security itself balance of power

from the scholarship above and the

analysis above what can we infer about

collective security concept. Sir the

first thing we can infer about the

collective security concept is

it is related to alliance and balance of

power. First inference that comes out is

sir this entire collective security

concept is [snorts] designed to augment

power.

This concept helps countries to augment

power. Sir, one thing is clear.

When we talk about collective security,

it is a mechanism that enables the

countries to augment their own power

structures.

Second important inference here is that

it acknowledges important point. Second,

it acknowledges the universality of

aggression.

When we are talking about collective

security, we are saying that we have all

come together to prevent an attack from

somebody

and know that is what we are saying.

This means what? This means you are

accepting the fact there will be an

aggression.

The entire premise of the concept is not

based on peace. The entire premise of

the concept, the assumption of the

concept is based on the fact that yes

there is going to be a problem. That

means that it accepts a universality of

aggression.

Aggression is a universal feature.

discussion.

If collective security accepts that

there is universality of aggression, can

we say that collective security is a

mirror of realism?

Question

collective security is what? It is a

mirror of realism because realism

theories basic assumption was this.

There is international anarchy.

Countries have to fend for themselves.

So as a result of which they will

augment power and conflict is natural

inevitable.

This is exactly what is happening here.

The entire concept of collective

security which talks about something of

universality of aggression

has been portrayed as if it is a concept

that builds peace.

Collective security

question, regional security, collective

security.

One of the basic concepts or

manifestations of collective security is

United Nation.

Sir, United Nation was conceptualized

with the objective of ensuring global

peace.

But see the beauty sir, the basic

assumption on which the UN is created

will never foster peace.

conflicting psychology

global peace.

It will promote global peace collective

security foundation assumption.

There is universality of aggression

dichotomy.

Nations agree

through collective security that they

can end aggression.

Nations

nation states

collective Security.

If nations can end aggression, the

critics argue, then why should nations

even accept that there can be

aggression?

Collective security.

How is collective security used as a

tool by countries to assert global

dominance?

So here the scholar that we have his

name is eh car

idealism eh car c a

by countries to augment power assert

dominance. So we have to look at two

concepts parallelly. We have to see

which are the countries which are using

collective security as a tool to number

one augment power because whenever they

augment power their objective and at the

end is to ensure global dominance.

So he says if you look at history there

are examples. For example he starts with

Germany under bismar.

He says Germany under Bismar what did

they do? Germany under Bismar unified

the territory. After Bismar unified the

territory, Germany augmented its power.

And when Germany augmented its power

prior to World War I, Germany wanted to

emerge as a globally dominant player.

So one thing is very clear sir, any

country which is using collective

security

is a country that will display two

features. First it will augment power.

Second, it will do global dominance.

This is the reason why India prefers to

stay away from alliances.

This is why India prefers to stay away

from these kind of collective security

organizations like NATO etc.

Because we don't want to become a part

of the group where we want to augment

power through the group

and therefore assert global dominance

because we feel that our global

dominance can be exerted differently.

We don't need to be a part of a

collective security group for that. So

we can assert our dominance separately.

Why India refrains from all these kind

of organizations which promote this kind

of aggressive thinking?

example.

Second example he says is basically of

Soviet Union. He says Soviet Union when

it was formed in 1917 to 1921

in that period also

the objective of creating the Soviet

Union per se that union of Soviet

Socialist republics

was designed with the objective of

augmenting power to assert global

dominance

because the objective at that time was

to showcase that if along with Russia

there are other Soviet states that can

align with it in its thinking then the

same thinking can be exported abroad

same thinking can be exported to

different countries

and thirdly he gives the example of

America and NATO he says during the cold

war USA's creation of NATO was driven

with the same logic

the way NATO is an alliance everyone

should come into NATO all those who come

into NATO can augment power using NATO

and therefore then what will happen is

that NATO will be able to export

capitalism globally. Export of

capitalism globally is equal to global

dominance of US. Export of communist

ideology by Soviet Union is equal to

dominance of Soviet over all over the

world. So idea is very clear that

whenever you use collective security as

a tool, you will try to augment power.

to augment power you will try to display

global dominance.

You clear third process

point present a critical analysis of the

collective security thesis. So sir

critical analysis is given by a scholar

whose name is Brian Hawking. Brian B r i

a n hawking. H O c k i n g.

Brian Hawking. So what does Brian

Hawking say? Brian Hawking says sir

collective security idea is a

paradoxical idea.

He says why it is paradoxical is because

those who speak about it they say that

see it has been created for noble

purpose

of ensuring peace.

But the reality is that it is too

idealistic.

There is nothing noble about what

collective security intends to achieve.

It is too idealistic

and it is too idealistic to this extent

that

it does not realize that in the name of

promoting peace it is actually promoting

aggression

that it does not realize this in the

name of promoting peace it ends up in

promoting aggression and violence.

He further says another important point

sir. He says key what happens as part of

the collective security also is

that it is based on a faulty assumption

that all those who have come together

there is no aggressor within them.

See this is a very important point Brian

is saying sir. He says if you look at

history in history Germany was the

country bismar led Germany

who initiated the concept of collective

security

but the problem is Germany itself became

the aggressor.

So we do not know that the one who is

promoting collective security

probably that one person doing that

promotion could himself be the aggressor

in the future. And he says it's not the

case of Germany alone sir. See the case

of US

throughout history US has said that NATO

is a part of collective security

and he says that boss NATO itself has

been promoting collective security but

the core creator of NATO that is US has

been the global aggressor.

So he says that it is in this context we

say that there is no noble reasoning in

creating collective security. In fact,

collective security should be seen as a

promoter of aggression in the future.

Why India will never ever go for

collective security type things?

Because India has that insecurity. We

feel we do not know key boss. If we sit

in a collective security club, who might

be the aggressor? We might end up in

getting branded that you are sitting

with an aggressor.

So India that is the reason why never

joined NATO that is why it never joined

Soviet Union's alliance

and they never joined any other

alliances sub alliances of NATO

and that is why India today has an

allergic attitude towards the word

called alliance

because we know one thing all these

collective security mechanisms they

appear thing something

but they manifest differently

In this context of the discussion that

we have done till now, can we make this

one last conclusion? Collective security

is a contested concept.

Collective security is a contested

concept.

Contested.

It says something,

displays something.

So there is no synchronization of the

thought that this is how the things will

evolve.

Clear

sub

question. How did the concept of

security emerge in international

relations? Is it an amorphous concept?

Explain with scholarship a comprehensive

approach to national security.

collective security word. So here the

thinker that we are going to use is

Henry Kissinger.

So Henry

selected chapters.

Henry Kissinger says security as a

concept has emerged after the peace of

West Failia 1648.

He says that 1648 onwards

when the peace of West failure came

security as a concept emerged.

Then what happened is that Kant as a

thinker came and he also emphasized that

states subordinate their

national interest to a common good

and it will be ruled by international

law.

States will be subordinating their

national interest to a common good

and not only they will subordinate their

national interest to a common good but

they will also be ruled by international

law.

So this understanding of Kant plus the

thought of Henry Kissinger they tell us

two important things.

They say

one important point to be understood

here is sir states have national

interest

but for the states national interest is

subordinate to what is called as a

common good. Common good word here used

by Kant is global security.

So he says that there is a global

security which is promoted by

international law. So see Kant is going

from bottom to up approach. He says

there is a state state has a national

interest but above the national interest

is a common good. This is why Kant will

never be able to support what realists

say because realists

no sir national interest is supreme.

Above that there is nothing. I can do a

military fight for my national interest.

Khan says key no boss. When you are

operating in an international system,

you have to understand state will have

national interest. National interest

will be subordinate to a common good and

that common good is a global good. That

global good which is a common good is

global security and global peace. Kant

says you can achieve your national

interest only when there is global

peace.

And how to ensure that there is global

peace. Kant says that there is an

international law. This is where Henry

Kissinger says key boss that

international law

that promotes global common good is

what? That international law which

promotes the global common good is

global security.

So global security ensures peace and

stability. If global security ensures

peace and stability

which is ensured through international

law then this allows the states to

pursue national interest concept.

So Kant says sir national interest is

one part of the global community and

international system.

National interest can only be pursued

when there is global security because

global security ensures peace and

stability.

So Kant basically very clearly argued

boss we need certain international rules

regulations bodies

these international rules regulation

bodies will promote global peace global

security

gave this thought Henry Kissinger

supported this idea but then the problem

came in this format better when United

Nations was born

UN was envisaged by few people as that

instrument that will promote global

peace and security.

UN was envisaged as that instrument that

will promote what is called as global

international law for security.

But this is where the problem came. This

is where the problem came.

Even though UN was created for that

purpose, countries never accepted that

UN is created for that purpose.

Every country had a different idea and

that is what made this global concept of

UN based security as amorphos.

It lacks definite ideas.

It lacks definite ideas.

Lacks definite ideas.

Every country does not have a similar

outlook towards global security

because when we created UN when we

created that international organization

based on the Canthian thought

there should be international law to

regulate security to ensure peace

stability.

Every country in the world had a

different approach towards it. Why?

Because for example India initially saw

UN as a platform for global security.

That is why sir when India witnessed a

security issue in the form of India

Pakistan war over Kashmir in 4748 we

took the matter to UN.

We perceived at that time that if UN is

created on the canan principle to

provide for international law that will

promote global security. So that

instrument will help us in promoting

global security.

But for India itself

its own experience at the UN for Kashmir

issue proved

that UN cannot provide for global

security in Kashmir.

So what has happened over a period of

time beta it will not be wrong to say

that today India does not look at UN for

global security. In fact India today

looks at UN at two levels. One is to

promote global development.

One is to promote global development.

And we look at UN today as not only a

global development tool but a tool for

power projection. So we feel that UN is

a platform where we can go and talk

about ourselves, our achievements, our

commitments.

Today we can go to UN and we can talk to

UN and tell people in the UN about how

we wish to emerge ourselves as a

responsible player. power projection.

So what has happened

even from India's point of view

our perception

of UN as an instrument

which was envisaged as an instrument for

global peace and security

has seen amorphous thinking

because it started with some idea but it

ended up in some idea.

Evolution

194748 we thought UN is for security

during the cold war we said no it is for

development new international economic

order briefly and today it is power

projection

so see even from India's point of view

it is amorphous so one thing is very

clear that security as a concept in

international relation lacks definite

idea amorphous meaning lacks a definite

idea because Every country perceives it

differently.

USA today feels the boss for us UN is

nothing but an extension of American

interest.

So for us, UN is nothing but a

subordinate office.

For India it is different. So no country

today has a definite idea about how to

view UN. And why I am repeatedly using

the word UN is beta because UN was

conceptualized for global security

based on the Canthian principle that

international law should govern

enable countries to pursue their

national interests.

Point clear

in the realm of national security and

international relations. Explain using

scholarship the concept of power,

military strength and force. Is power a

zero sum game? Sir here again beta the

scholar is Henry Kissinger only. What

does Henry Kissinger say? He says sir

power is what the nations possess

to control their sovereignity.

Nations possess to control their

sovereignity. So from the Henry

Kissinger's perspective B

the concept of power is hard power that

in order to protect your sovereignity

what kind of instruments do you have

what kind of possessions do you have?

So basically Henry Kissinger argues sir

power is all about material capabilities

and these material capabilities are your

economic and military strength.

But this is where another problem lies.

that what Henry Kissinger says might

have been an idea for one part of the

time in the world but this idea is not

common throughout the world.

Why? Because for example today according

to Joseph Nye Nye

power is not about economic or military

power is also about soft power.

So here what we are trying to say is g

the word power itself is number one

contested

every country will define power their

way for America if it is economic and

military capability then for India it is

soft power.

Similarly, when we talk about military

strength, sir, military strength

basically means the capability of your

forces,

capabilities of your armed forces

to protect your sovereignity.

So, military strength means hardcore

strength of your troops.

But beta in military strength there is

one more added concept of nuclear

weapon.

Okay, your military strength is not only

your conventional armed forces, it's

also your nuclear troops. Nuclear troops

means in your armed forces, which of the

wings of the armed forces have the

capability to use nuclear weapon?

So if army only has the capability to

use nuclear weapon, we say that army is

the only instrument.

But beta if in a country army, navy, air

force all have capabilities to use

nuclear weapon. We say triad T r i a all

three troops

all three have the capability to launch

nuclear weapon. Today in the case of

India we know we have a triad.

Our army, navy, air force all have the

capability to use nuclear weapon through

their instruments of power that they

use.

And what is the concept of force sir?

Force here is basically an instrument of

coercion

to do behavioral change.

Force is what? An instrument of coercion

to do behavioral change. What behavioral

change? The behavioral change to achieve

an objective that you have set

to force beta. Whatever behavioral

change you will do, that behavioral

change will be based on

that behavioral change will be based on

what? It will be based on your military

objective.

It will be based on your military

objective.

But now the question is sir, is power a

zero sum game? Answer is yes.

When we talk about the word power, we

are basically saying what's military

capability

discussion security dilemma.

What happens when one country enhances

its military capability? Other will

become insecure. They will counter

increase their military capability. This

will then again increase military

capability. This will again increase. So

it will keep escalating.

So why is it a zero sum game? Because

nobody gains.

Because the idea is key sir once you

focus only on military capabilities

there is no end to it because from

military capabilities you will go to

nuclear capabilities but beyond nuclear

capabilities the thing exists

and that is the time when you might

enter as Henry Kissinger says you might

enter into

not only the fact that you'll have a

power dilemma

but you will also realize is that there

is no utility of doing this kind of a

game further.

Why you will realize that there is no

utility? Because what will happen here

with if you keep increasing your

military capabilities then from military

capabilities if you keep increasing your

nuclear capabilities one day you will

realize what do I do beyond

this is where Joseph Ny again comes and

says one day you will realize that

actual game lies in soft power.

So he says that you know military

capability will enhance to nuclear

capability and nuclear capability will

finally manifest

one day into soft power.

That is why beta Joseph Ny

and the point that he says is now

explained by another scholar here that

we will mention. His name is Nam

Chomsky. Nam Nam Chomsky. N A O M N

Chomsky. C H O M SK Y very very

influential man in US sir Nam Chomsky

Nam Chomsky's case he this is the reason

why today US has realized the power of

narrative building

because US has understood the fact sir

that it has reached saturation in

military power it has reached saturation

in nuclear power the only way to now

control other countries in the world is

through the power of narrative

so power is a zero some game boss

because once you enhance your military

capability, once you enhance your

nuclear capability, you will realize

that you have achieved the peak.

While you may not officially accept the

peak, you will silently and quietly

change towards what is called a soft

power. Propaganda is one of the soft

powers. Narrative building is

propaganda.

America is doing this.

They are basically trying to use the

power of propaganda

propaganda.

question

216

what are the recent non-military ideas

emerging in national security studies in

Iay

non-military ideas

which are coming up as security

challenges

examine in the light of changing nature

of security

elaborate

energy security.

You can self elaborate these points. So

I'm just making you write the bullets

that you can elaborate on your own and

build on your own. Energy security,

food security,

environmental security,

health security

and other non-traditional items like

prevention of human trafficking.

Arm smuggling,

Drug trafficking.

Question. Explain the realist security

approach.

Huh? Migration, demography,

cyber, you can add many things you want.

Clear sub

explain the realist security sir

using illustration and scholarship sir.

So scholar here is sir a person by the

name of bhan b u zn ban.

So Bhan says sir

realist scholars have tried to explain

security by saying that there is no

peace in the world and the world is in a

constant environment and state of war.

World is in a constant state of war.

Now he says G sir in the perception of

the realists

one thing is very clear sir state is the

main actor who has to ensure security

and this state which is the main actor

will try to maximize their power

and once it maximizes its power one

thing will become clear

it will enter into what is called as

alliance formation

Augmenting own capabilities

create insecurity

create security dilemma.

Augment power, increase power, create

insecurity, create security dilemma

and therefore

use military as a tool to assert global

dominance.

The world is in a constant state of war,

permanent state of war.

In security is of paramount importance.

Busan says security for realist is of

paramount importance.

They will do anything and everything for

security.

Neoist approach

sisti

k o l a s i

what does kulasi say sir? Kulasi says

key sir when we talk about the neo

realalist perspective. These neoly

realists are those people who argue a

very important thing. They say sir,

states will try to

not only enhance their military

expenditures

to maintain global security but while

doing that they will also try to

cooperate with other like-minded states.

This cooperation with other like-minded

states will create a condition where

will happen is

that they will be able to form larger

alliances.

But Kulasi says that what has happened

in the global politics today is that

seeing the countries create

seeing the countries create this kind of

a global security based on alliances is

not giving us global results.

So countries instead of creating these

kind of alliances

cooperating on the like-mindedness have

now started creating miniaterals.

So neo realalists are the people who say

sir miniaterals today are more effective

and he says that there is another name

for miniaterals that we use called

regional security groups

RSGs regional security groups. So he

says that what has happened over a

period of time is countries will do

military expenditure to ensure security

but then they will witness an evolution.

What is the evolution key? They will

start with what is called as alliances.

they will realize that alliances are not

useful then they will gradually go for

miniaterals and these miniaterals might

emerge in the form of later regional

security groups. So Colasi here explains

the fact you see NATO was one point of

time one of the biggest groups in the

world but he says that NATO has mutated

today. Mutated means it has split today.

So today one of the mutated versions of

NATO is what he calls as Indopacific and

Quad. One of the mutated versions of

NATO is what he calls as OUS.

So he says beta Indoacific quad and oas

are such groupings which today exist as

many

but in the future he says what is the

future? I see question

he says kasi says while today

Indo-Pacific oas and quad exist as many

groupings

there is a high probability that these

groupings in the near future will become

a regional security group regional

security group means what he's trying to

say is sir these miniaterals are new

groups today

but they are not able to have consensus

over a period of time in the next few

years the future of these groupings is

key sir they will establish themselves

as a regional security group regional

security group here means that they will

develop some commonalities on which they

will all agree

India will also agree on few points

America will agree on few points and

that common thread which binds all these

groups will be making these people a

regional security group

Indoacific

Mutated alliances

regional security groups evolutionary

pathad

is a mutated version of an alliance.

Alliances are no more successful. Thus

quad is equal to miniateral. Quad is

equal to minilateral is equal to in

future regional security group thought.

Thinking clear

question what is the security approach

of the liberal theories? How do they

secure a balance between liberty

security? Use illustrations and

scholarship sir. So Robert Khune

liberal

Robert Khune says sir idea is that

global security

is only possible when there is maximum

liberty.

Liberal global security is only possible

when there is

promotion of liberty.

Liberty is only possible when there is

complex interdependence.

Liberty is only possible when

countries come together

under a complex interdependence

and ensure

a very important thing

that is creation of a cobweb model.

So when they ensure a cobweb model one

thing is very clear

at this juncture

when there is a cobweb when there is

complex interdependence

there is maximization of individual

liberty

which is creating economic liberty.

Individual liberty, economic liberty.

This individual liberty which is

promoted through complex interdependence

through the cobweb model will strengthen

economic liberty and that will ensure

global security.

compendependence

the military slips up

because there are economic forces that

forge cooperation

forces

forc

or liberty.sperity.

He will never want war.

Securityinc

questions.

Neoist in case security approach neo-Max

security

is only provided when there is a

revolution in the society because

through the revolution the capitalist

class is overthrown.

There is a state established by the

worker population. That worker

population will work for the welfare of

the workers

and not only they will work for the

welfare of the workers.

Marxists will always believe sir there

will be a borderless world of all

workers.

Labor

to this borderless world of all the

workers will ensure cooperation amongst

the global worker community.

This will ensure not only cooperation

amongst global labor community but sir

global labor solidarity.

So global labor solidarity will ensure

what?

It will ensure one very important thing.

There is no need for security

because when globally labor class

dominates

it works for the welfare of the most

downtrodden on the earth.

So when there are no capitalists, there

is no need for security.

by birth

by nature is a social animal

by nature animals

requirement.

root cause inequality.

Inequality

Page number 219 question.

Examine the coordinates of the critical

theory.

1920s

and 1930s was the time period when there

were certain scholars living in Germany.

These scholars who were living in

Germany were basically Marxist scholars.

They were inspired by the Russian

revolution.

Russian revolution had already stated

very clearly that our objective is what?

Our objective is to promote communism

globally.

But sir when Russian revolution happened

when they tried to promote communism

globally they realized that they face a

challenge

because there is no possibility that

another country will buy communism so

easily. So you have to do a lot of

pressurizing.

So what happened in that time is while

there were communists at one place who

were trying to globally promote

communism

in 1930s a bunch of scholars came

together in Germany

and these people in Germany began to

think

if there is communism that has to be

promoted amongst the other states

state can definitely play a role that

means Soviet Union can definitely play a

role but the issue is what if Soviet

Union alone is not able to do that. Then

to promote global communism, there has

to be some academic support also. To

give that academic support to the

communist movement globally, these

scholars in 1930s in Germany created the

Frankfurt school.

Frankfurt school.

Now what happened in 1930s when the

Frankfurt school was created

and these scholars of the Frankfurt

school were sitting thinking that how

can we lend support to the communist

movement

in Germany at that time. Hitler came

Hitler started identifying and

persecuting these communists. Hitler

even threatened these Frankfurt school

people. You know what happened then? All

these people of the Frankfurt school

after coming of Hitler in Germany left

Germany went to US.

When they went to US they renamed the

Frankfurt school in US as the critical

theory.

And then in US they started championing

the critical theory which was nothing

but the same Marxist agenda.

And under the umbrella name of critical

theory they started now saying

the best way to support communists to

help promote communism is to degrade

culture

assault on the culture.

So critical theory's basic premise is

this.

Aold the culture of a state, assold the

cultural thinking of the people of the

state, it will pave way for communists

to enter into that state. Because once

people start questioning their culture,

they start questioning all materialism

with the culture.

Critical theory, Frankfurt school, India

school of thought

party

extensions.

Grandma

Satishra

Groverin

answers Frankfurt school critical theory

extensions in India

complete assault on culture

leftist

Frankfurt school becoming critical

theory. Critical theory saying assault

on culture. The best way to destroy the

social security fabric of a state is

destroy their culture.

Best way

is another example critical theory

assault on culture

sir in larger objective sir

destroy the security of the state by

eroding the culture of a state.

If people start questioning their

culture, their tradition, what will

happen are the consequences

that people here will be in a position

to

destroy

their own security.

Why? Because they will have question

mark on the credibility of the state.

culture destroy

people start questioning the sanctity of

the state

supremacy

basically

critical theory

Frankfurt school mutation

simple security of the state can be

tackled the best way erode the culture

of the state

clear point

Frankfurt school critical theory

detail don't worry

topic political science political theory

meaning introduction and approaches

feminist security approach

feminist

scholarship here is sir.

Exiological.

A x i o l o

g i c a l. Axiological.

The entire concept of security is based

on wrong assumptions. Wrong access.

Wrong premise.

Wrong assumptions. Security conception

wrong. Wrong access based.

Security today is all male centered.

male centric.

When males talk about anarchy, it is

their nature that

Security is male ccentric. Anarchy is

the true nature of man.

And males prefer anarchy. It is in this

anarchy that they are able to create

confrontational situation.

They are able to create confrontational

situation.

So they say sir the entire concept of

security is male interest driven.

Males like to use force.

Males like to prefer to not only use

force but also

play with big weapons.

basically

feminist

sir. How can security be made feminist?

The best way to make security feminist

is to address the core issues.

Core issue is sir mismanagement of

resource.

Mismanagement of resource means key sir

males are not able to manage the

resources of the state effectively.

Only women can manage the resources

effectively

resources manage

the other cause of problem today that

has to be addressed to bring about

feminist security human right

violations.

s address the human right violations or

sir the root cause why feminist version

of security cannot be promoted is that

there is a social imbalance women are

always not treated as equal to men

they are not treated as equal to men

because they are basically looked upon

as housekeepers.

So as a result of which the entire axis

on which the security principle is based

is faulty.

perception of security.

Then finally after criticizing all this

about males, how do we how do feminists

ensure security? So her answer was

feminist cannot ensure security till the

time the males are here.

till the time

basic idea is sir when it comes to

feminist perspective let's understand

one thing sir they are critical of the

security

their criticism of the security is that

it is male-dominated

but then they fail to outline their

version of security

so by merely criticizing and leaving

things will not work sir you have to

present an alternative argument also

The alternative argument is key sir

mismanagement of resources and human

right violations must stop.

But sir how is mismanagement of

resources and human right violations if

they are stopped ensure security

logic.

Constructivist security approach.

Sir, constructivist security approach is

given by Whitney Webb. Whitney Wii T N Y

Whitney Web WB.

So sir, their perception constructivist

perception of security is sir security

problems arise because of socioeconomic

conflicts.

So they say sir socioeconomic conflicts

are basically the reason why

there is a need for security. Now what

they also say is key sir today what has

happened is that because of

globalization

there is value and culture erosion

and any erosion of values and cultures

will create more security challenges

because sir when a man is basically

deprived of his own civilizational value

and culture

he will feel insecure and that

insecurity will create some kind of

social crisis.

That insecurity will not only create

some kind of social crisis but that

insecurity will also ensure

that there are cultural dissonance in

the society.

Cultural dissonance. Cultural

dissonance.

insecurity

problems.

So they are saying if today people are

becoming violent if there are security

problems let's understand that these

security problems are not because of

anything else but their root cause that

root cause is erosion of social and

cultural values.

So how do you ensure security? So they

say to ensure security you don't need

military.

To ensure security you don't need

weapons. To ensure security you don't

need nuclear technologies.

So how do you ensure security? They say

the best way to ensure security is to

make sure that you focus on ethics,

values

and improving the quality of life.

So if you work on ethics, values,

improving the quality of life, then what

will happen is

that cultures of the people will remain

protected and protection of cultures of

the people will ensure the next

important thing which is that there will

be no cultural deprivation.

Absence of cultural deprivation will

create conditions where one thing will

become very clear.

In this scenario, if people feel that

their cultures are not violated,

they will have no insecurity. So

constructivist version of security is

more related through education,

more related through ethics, value of

life, quality of life promotion etc.

So they are the ones who do not use the

term military at all.

Copenhagen school was influenced by

political philosophy and contributed to

the concept of power and security

through multi-dimensional comprehensive

approaches in the ontological

epistemological context. Examine the

thesis in the light of scholarship.

Scholar here is sir James Staviridis.

James Staviris s t a v i r i d i s.

Staviris

s t a v i r i d i s

James Staviris. Now sir, what is the

Copenhagen school? Copenhagen school is

a school which says

that security is a phenomena that needs

to be addressed in a context.

The context here is that the states are

not abstract entities but are made up of

societies.

stepbystep approach.

Security is a phenomena that needs to be

addressed in a context.

Security

states are not abstract entities.

They are made up of different kinds of

societies.

So, society has to be at the heart of

any analysis of security.

And how do that how does that happen?

They say by states must realize that

they all have a common interest.

They must try to protect the gains that

they develop out of the common interest.

And how do they protect the gains out of

the common interest?

By creating mechanisms where energy of

each individual is driven to strengthen

society.

energy of each individual is driven

towards strengthening of the society.

So sir their logic is not very different

from what is called as the

constructivist view that we have just

seen.

They also say the same thing but

security is not about military. Security

is all about society. It is all about

the individual in the society.

It is also about how individuals

use their energy,

synergize or cooperate with their

energies

to do nation building.

So if all individuals,

if all individuals

are focused by basically bringing their

energy for nation building,

then their constructive energy is used

for a purpose.

this purpose will work for their

betterment.

So security cannot be provided merely by

military sir. It has to be also provided

by channelizing the energies of the

people for well-being.

And this is where these people also say

sir that state alone cannot play the

role here. Certain non-state actors like

global institutions,

certain non-state actors like you know

international organizations

they also help drive this behavior.

So Copenhagen school is very clear was

society has to be seen from the prism of

security

in the society are individuals.

Channelize the energy of each individual

for well-being. Use international

organizations to also channelize the

energy of each individual for wellbe.

If each individual in each society is

focused on wellbeing, security is

automatically offered because the

energies are diverted towards well-being

and not towards war. So security is not

to be provided by military. Security has

to be provided by channelizing or

synergizing the energies of the people.

State alone is not the player.

International organizations will also

play an important role. So there is an

interconnected world where everyone

focuses all their energies on their own

wellbeing.

So wellbeingcentric security,

more focus on wellbeing, more focus on

upliftment of your thinking, more focus

on your own creative energy, no

requirement of military

school.

What are the tenets of the Abberiswith

School of Security and who are the

scholars? Sir, your school

has been given by John Perkins. [snorts]

P E R K I N S Perkins.

They say sir security is not about

military sir.

Security is all about

how you want to use the power of

narrative

to keep your domestic constituents

happy.

So they say security is all about

narrative management.

Security is all about how you try to

convince your

domestic constituents

and how you want to keep them happy.

Perkins further says sir sometimes some

countries resort to war.

when they resort to war what happens is

sir war is done with the larger

objective to keep the domestic

population happy

because there are some people in some

countries who prefer war all the time

for example state of Israel

so John Bergen says sir Isra will

perpetually either be in conflict or

manufacture conflict

because Israeli people have been

dominated by this narrative believe that

war is essential for living.

John Perkins then goes to a much deeper

level sir. He says sir in those states

where conscription is mandatory

conscription

mandatory military service. He says key

sir in those states where conscription

is mandatory these are states which are

a clear example

that the dominant narrative here is

in these states

the dominant narrative in these states

is that we will always focus on

aggression and violence.

But he says that there are some states

which also have a dominant narrative

that are focuses on well-being and

neutrality.

For example, Switzerland.

He says Switzerland, Scandinavian

countries, these are states that will

never ever use the concept of war.

Their dominant narrative is let's live

peacefully.

So he says sir security differs

everywhere

because every time whenever we see

security we have to see sir what is the

narrative at that time in the state.

If the narrative is that we want to keep

fighting because we are a state under a

constant threat then the narrative will

be to basically always fight war do

military expenditure etc.

But if the narrative is not of this then

one thing is very clear

sir in the future this will create a

different narrative as seen in the

Scandinavian countries. So he says very

clearly sir security is all about how

you want to tackle your domestic

constituents your people of the state.

People

of the state

enmy, China

question.

>> [gasps]

>> See 2020 China never did that for

because of

complete intelligence failure

one lakh troops China

2020 January Mongolia

in the east.

Technical Research Organization

NSAT

is one of the most

Low competence officers in the

government today.

Retired.

A man with a very mediocre intelligence.

Low competence.

Stand.

One nation election voting BJP

[laughter]

partyain.

Bala code

any

postmodern.

So postmodern idea clear postmodern

basically says all problems today in the

society are created because of

modernity.

Modernity is driven by globalization.

Globalization and modernity have created

marginalization of people.

And because it has created

marginalization of people, one thing is

very important

that today

conventional wars are happening

only because there is a fight for

resource.

But sir, these people of postmodernity

have said one very important thing. You

know what they have said?

modernization, modernity, globalization,

all these things have not only created

what is called as marginalization.

Not only marginalization,

but all these marginalized people are

now used by states as mercenaries.

All these marginalized people are used

by states as mercenaries.

And they are used as mercenaries to wage

proxy wars.

So security has witnessed a new concept

that from conventional wars to proxy

wars. In proxy wars, these people

have come to the conclusion now that

the best way to tackle the marginalized

sections is to use them in a proxy war.

Use them as mercenaries. continue to do

those agendas which at the conventional

level you could not do.

For example, VA when we see Russia doing

activities in Africa today using Wagner

group,

it is basically an attempt to allow

mercenaries from all over the world to

join Wagner group and play part in proxy

wars of Russia.

They are mercenaries, marginalized

sections of the society.

Sir, the wars are no more, security is

no more conventional. Sir, security has

now become at a different level,

proxy level. And in this proxy level,

marginalized people are used. How are

marginalized people born? They are born

because of the modernity and the

consequences of modernity.

So the marginalized section in the

society is by birth of modernity.

So clear. Modernity is the problem.

Modernity has created marginalized

section

because of the marginalization.

Conventional wars have reduced. Proxy

wars have increased. Marginalized people

are used in the proxy wars. States

continue to fight. Security remains

dominant. But marginalized people are

now used for fighting proxy.

Pur clear.

Question homework

number 224

question.

Present a critical evaluation of the

concept of balance of power. You can

write down two lines here.

The concept of balance of power has

never ensured real peace.

has never ensured real peace.

Because

the states

are not static.

They are driven by [clears throat]

revisionism.

and continue to expand power.

The conflict between America and China

because of the expansionism of China

has left the balance of power theory

completely in dilemma.

This is because

The states continue to

expand

form miniaterals

like quad and occasion

and yet fail in

providing

balance of power.

The concept has also failed because

it has failed to

Discuss issues pertaining to human right

violations

and does not incorporate any framework.

to address

the human right issues

that have dominated the global politics

in the recent times.

Take

question

Second.

Mumbar balcony.

for

Law and order

questionage

number. What is deterrence? Deterrence

basically has to be seen through two

concepts. There is one concept of

deterrence. One concept of compellance.

Deterance. Deterance means to det. Det

means to discourage.

D discourage discourage det means to

restrain.

Restrain means to prevent someone to do

an unwanted action.

So deterance comes from the idea that a

state must possess a capability

to prevent another state to do an action

it does not want it to do.

So deterrence means you have such

capability.

You have such capacity that you can

basically restrain the other state,

prevent the other state to do an

activity that you do not want to happen.

So in this context,

deterance is all about stopping an

action from another state.

But sir, deterrence is a very big thing

because

you are using your military capabilities

to prevent an another state to take an

action. That means sir other state must

fear your capability

because other state must live in that

constant state of fear that if I display

this behavior

then such a behavior that I may display

may lead the other state to use its

military capability to again mold my

behavior.

So deterrence is not only a fear-based

concept sir deterrence is a concept that

ensures highest level of security

because through deterrence you can

basically try to

warn the other state of dire

consequences

if a state displays some behavior.

But a deterrence has to be seen with

another concept called compellence.

C O M P E D L A N C E Compellence.

Compellence here basically means that a

state has the capacity to force an actor

to display a specific behavior.

That means sir, you may compel the other

state that you have to do this and if

you don't do this then I might use my

military power to make you do this.

So compelance is to compel to take

action. Deterrence is to ensure that it

does not take the action.

For example,

compellance is where you are forcing

them to take action because of your

military might. Deterrance is you

basically tell them not to take action

because of your military might.

So sir, in either of the scenario, the

objective is better very clear.

It's all about convincing another state

to display a specific behavior,

positive, negative, based on your

military might.

Based on your military might.

So today,

India has deterrence over Pakistan but

not compellance over Pakistan.

India has deterrence because India can

tell Pakistan if you do any mischievous

activity against us

using the gray area of our nuclear

Compance. Can India use its nuclear

military

might to compel Pakistan to dismantle?

No, we cannot do that.

So India has the capability of

deterrence,

lacks the capability of compellance.

Question sir, how do you build

capability of compellance? Sir,

capability of compellance is built with

symmetric powers,

not when the other state uses asymmetric

tools.

Because when the other state uses

asymmetric tools, sir, it can always

deny the existence of the same.

Asymmetry

symmetrical level.

Deterrence always has to be studied with

compellance.

Question sir, what is denial versus

punishment thesis in deterrence? Sir,

explain using scholarship sir. scholar

here is Thomas Shelling.

Thomas Shelling very influential person

sir

in the international relations. Thomas

Shelling Thomas Shelling says sir denial

means

that you det by making success unlikely.

Denial sir you do deterance by making

the success of an activity of the other

unlikely.

So denial

you can always d the other party by

telling boss if you do this there are

going to be dire consequences.

For example sir you deny Pakistan the

opportunity to use their nuclear weapon

by saying

that if you happen to use your nuclear

weapon then there will be massive and

unacceptable retaliation.

Pakistan

Pakistan we have no first use but if you

happen to use your nuclear weapon first

if you even drop one nuclear warhead on

India

there will be massive and unacceptable

retaliation by India

your consequences for your behavior will

be catastrophic for you

so therefore using our massive and

unacceptable Retaliation principle we

are able to deny Pakistan the

opportunity to use their nuclear warhead

against us.

Denial

den

or punishment. Punishment means sir you

impose penalties upon a state displaying

the behavior.

How do you impose a penalty? By

punishment. For example, surgical

operation sir. If Pakistan resorts to

use of a non-state actor to do terrorism

against India, sir, punish Pakistan for

that misadventurism.

Carry out a surgical strike operation in

their territory by deliberately

targeting that specific place,

that specific jihadi group that resorted

to this

punishment. Punishment

impose penalty.

impose penalty.

Punishment does not imply

a permanent change in the behavior of

the state.

Punishment is done with an intention to

inflict

you know harm to you. Punishment is done

with the objective of inflicting harm to

you for displaying a specific behavior.

But whether that punishment will lead to

a long-term behavioral change or not is

something which is highly debatable in

international relations.

Unfortunately,

Once a cheater, always a cheater, sir.

There's no other way. That is the only

way to prevent cheating.

Chemical castration

cheating.

You get these people will never change

their behavior. Sir, they will seek

forgiveness. You will ask for they will

ask for punishment also. But they will

never change their behavior.

behavioral change

relations.

US has been punishing Iran for a long

time

by doing sanctions. But does that deter

Iran?

It does not sir. Iran remains committed

to supporting Hezbollah, Hamas, Houthis,

everybody.

So more you punish there is a high

probability that a state will display

more such recalcitrant behavior.

So punishment as a tool has not been

found very effective sir in

international relations.

Punishment as a tool.

Is clear?

Denial versus punishment.

Sir, what is direct deterrence versus

extended distance? Explain with

scholarship and example, sir. Scholar

here is beta Michael Lewis.

L E W Leon.

Why should that girl continue to live in

that relationship with that person

family?

family.

Our society unfortunately is totally

screwed up. Sir does not have any

morality today.

just for the sake of society.

So

Michael,

direct deterrence means

an effort to prevent an attack on one

own territory.

Direct deterren sir I will take steps to

prevent an attack on my territory.

I will ensure key sir my security is

beefed up that you do not have the

potential to attack my territory.

For example

India

working upon

comprehensive integrated border

management system.

CIBMS comprehensive integrated border

management system with Pakistan on the

Indopak boundary

comprehensive integrated border

management system is basically a tool of

direct deterrence by India

where India is able to ensure one thing

is sir

it ensures that Pakistan does not resort

to any kind of aggression over our

territory. Therefore we deter or prevent

attacks on our territory.

But then what is extended deterrence?

Extended deterrence means you try to

basically discourage an attack

by engaging with a third party.

Extended deterrence. You engage with a

third party

and prevent an attack on your territory.

For example, India working with Bhutan

to ensure that Dclam plateau is not used

by China to target India.

Some

India working with Bhutan

to ensure that

they do not use the Dclam plateau

territory to target India. Yeah, for

that matter recent

India working with the Kachin rebels,

India working with the Arakan army to

ensure that Bangladesh does not allow

Myanmar territory to target India.

Myanmar

provinces Kachin province Kin

triunction India Myanmar China or Arakan

province

India or Bangladesh or Myanmar

Bangladesh Myanmar

to India engaging with these third

territories

third territories

to ensure that in the future they don't

basically target us.

Clear

sir. What is general versus immediate

thesis of deterren? Sir, illustrate with

scholarship an example. Scholar here is

Alexander George.

Alexander George sir sir general

deterrence means

a persistent effort to prevent unwanted

action.

Persistent effort means a long-term

effort

to prevent an unwanted action

but in a non crisis situation.

So such general deterance is used when

there is no crisis

and even when there is no crisis

happening you basically carry out

persistent efforts to prevent another

party to do any behavior on you.

For example, sir, India

uses general deterrence with respect to

Pakistan.

AB there is no crisis happening between

India Pakistan. But that does not mean

key India should not do deterrence for

Pakistan. Sir, India still is remaining

active inside Pakistan

gathering intelligence from Pakistan to

ensure that in the long run Pakistan

does not use any of their non-sate

actors to threaten us.

So it's a continuous practice when there

is no crisis.

Then comes the immediate deterrence. Sir

immediate deterren is sir key taking

action to prevent

a specific crisis that may happen

because of a spark

immediate deterrence.

taking some steps to ensure that when

there is a crisis, it does not escalate

further.

For example, sir, when India carries out

a surgical strike on Pakistan,

after carrying out the surgical strike,

sir, India immediately activates all

columns of its armed forces along the

Indopak border to ensure that after the

surgical strike, the Pakistani military

does not escalate the conflict further.

So our military is activated all across

the boundary to remain active as part of

immediate deterrence that you know this

crisis should not lead to escalation.

Clear general versus immediate

narrow versus broad scholar here is

Richard smoke.

Richard smoke narrow deterrence means

sir use of military tools

to ensure deterrence

use of military tools.

So India has always used military tools

to ensure deterrence against China

by building up of border infrastructure,

development of intercontinental

ballistic missiles,

development of missiles that can target

the Chinese economic centers.

So these are basically military tools,

ICBMs,

missiles that directly tackle or target

the Chinese economic centers.

broad strategy to ensure deterrence. For

example, one is influence operations.

Influence operations are called

non-kinetic operations.

Non-kinetic

you use the strategy of propaganda.

You use the strategy of propaganda

to alter the behavior of states, alter

the social fabric of the people.

Similarly, sir, under the broad, there

is another example of let's say economic

sanctions.

You sanction a country with the larger

objective to ensure deterrence against

certain specific activities they do.

And third is sir propaganda.

Propaganda is done directly to discredit

a state.

Influence operation s the focus is on

subverting the population.

Influence operation or propaganda.

influence operation is primarily to

subvert the population

long-term and propaganda is generally

short-term

because propaganda is all about

discrediting the state for example India

Canada recently

where Canada has been discrediting India

by saying

Prime Minister Minister

propaganda.

What is the local balance of force

thesis? Explain with scholarship.

Scholar is Sir Richard Lebo.

L Richard Lebo.

Richard Lebo says local balance of force

thesis means that you basically identify

domestic fault lines of a state

and after identifying domestic fault

lines of a state play with those

domestic fault lines.

Play with those domestic fault lines.

How do you do that? by internally

weakening a state.

So sir for example

Pakistan using domestic falter lines of

Hindu Muslim discord in India.

Pakistan using

a falter line called minority

suppression by India.

Minority separation.

Modi resation

constituency

and allstate

India minorities suppression

sir Congress party at least should not

talk about suppression on minorities

when they have carried out genocide on

the sick minorities in India

minority minority

sir

They are basically manufactured from

outside

and they are being utilized for the

purpose of

local balance thesis. Local balance

means internally weaken estate.

So it is again a persistent long-term

activity.

Persistent and long-term

sad is school.

Sir, what is the dominant variable

thesis?

Sir, dominant variable thesis is given

by George Perovich.

George Perovich.

So George Burkovich says sir dominant

variable thesis means you identify

certain

global threats

and countries which are promoters of

that global threats

and eliminate those countries by doing

regime changes.

Identify countries which are global

threats.

tackle these countries which are global

threats through regime changes

and bring about favorable regimes in

those states so that these regimes do

not act as global threats.

So he argues that what USA has done in

Afghanistan, Iraq

are examples of dominant variable thesis

that we have dominantly identified that

these are states that need to have a

variable regime.

A regime that is friendly

so that this friendly regime does not

tantamount to that country becoming a

global threat.

Iraq has weapons of mass destruction.

Global threats.

How do you justify in front of the world

that it is a global threat?

And even if it is a global threat, why

should one country bring about a

systemic change in the behavior?

Sir, if your country is a global threat,

then one thing is very clear. Let the UN

play a role. UN has been created for

global peace and security.

Iraq of mass destruction. International

atomic energy agency.

dominant variable thesis of deterrence

is used to perpetuate hegim.

It is used to perpetuate hegim.

Explain the threepoint fundamental

deterrence thesis.

Threepoint fundamental deterrence thesis

has been given by a scholar whose name

is Patrick Morgan.

P A T R I C K Patrick Morgan M O R Ga

What does Patrick Morgan say? Patrick

Morgan says key sir there are three

point fundamental deterrenes that can be

used. One is a level of aggressor

motivation.

So you decide deterrence on the

principle of what is the level of

aggression of the

other party.

If the other party is highly aggressive

your deterrence has to be adequately

designed. For example, sir, Iran,

if USA has to tackle Iran, USA has to

understand, sir, that the level of

aggressor motivation is very high.

Iran has a very high level of aggressor

motivation.

Second thing is sir, key what is the

action that the defender will take. So

your deterrence has to be based on this

principle sir.

Key if you try to do an activity to

deter that other country to do something

you must also be prepared that the other

country will also take some actions

to nullify your deterrence.

So what steps could they take sir? You

have to visualize and plan them in

advance.

For example, sir,

Isra

is always prepared for a conventional

war

because history says that Israel has

always witnessed an attack by Arab

states.

So, Israel had a good conventional army.

But sir, what happened last year in 7th

October? Sir, they were attacked by a

non-state actor called Hamas.

Now the problem is what better Israel

has never developed a capability to

tackle a non-state actor

because they always felt that the

threats will come from nation states.

So their failure to understand that how

a non-state actor has to be tackled has

prolonged the war

because they do not understand the

action that the defender is taking

today. And how is Israel trying to

tackle Hamas through a conventional

fight?

casualty

because you do not understand what

actions will the defender take. This is

the biggest weakness of Israel today in

the deterrence theory. So Israeli

deterren has failed for that matter.

Third point, computational policy

outcomes.

Computational policy outcome.

Computational policy outcome

simulations.

Computer simulations.

Computer simulation

computer simulate policy outcomes design

so that you are able to predict what can

be the possible consequences of insuring

deterance.

Patrick Morgan

recent

explain the relevance of regionalism in

world politics.

But regionalism

group

casualty in 1984. Yes.

Question

according to Busan and Dent. Busan B

user DM Dent D E N T. According to Busan

and Dent, regionalism means

a region with

global significance

in international politics.

The relevance can be understood

from the fact that

a region might have a construct

based on

material resources.

For instance,

ASEAN comes under this category.

Constructing regionalism based on

security

is viewed

through the principle of European Union

and NATO.

To analyze the relevance of regionalism,

the principles used include

material cooperation,

human benefit

and regional security.

These three have been the dominant

factors.

That explain

the regionalism.

Question. Use the scholarship trace the

theoretical origins of regionalism of U

and AM.

So sir here the scholarship is of Amitav

Acharia

Amitav V

T Amitav Acharia

he says that when we look at EU

EU basically sir

it is a grouping where countries have

come together on what is called as a

common national interest

that common national interest is a

shared identity of each European country

that they all have a shared identity

and more important is key sir that

common national interest is that there

will be a collective will to

collectively engage with the world.

So EU has that collective will

where the collective will is that we

will collectively come together to

engage with the world to enhance our

national interest.

Answer the creation of EU can be

explained as Amitab Vachara says

that fragmented EU states lack power,

collective states have more power.

So the driving force behind European

Union is that fragmentism in

international politics is not right.

Fragmentation of international politics,

fragmentation of states in international

politics.

So how do you work upon it sir? The best

way to work upon it is collectively come

together, fuse your national interests

then bargain.

So EU is more an identitycentric

project.

EU is more a collective identity project

based on shared values.

is a nonwar community

a very important point non-war community

he says that if EU was born out of

fragmentation fear

fragmented we fall together we rise

then asan is born out of a non-world

community which means AEN very clearly

said

for us coming together because of

fragmentation is not the reason we are

not coming together because we are

fragmented

We are not coming together because

individually we don't want to fight a

war. We will not be able to fight a war.

He says Assean has come together on the

principle and premise of economic

integration.

And when we say economic integration, it

is that we will make for the world,

produce for the world.

This is where Amitab Bachara says when

we look at EU we say EU is a collective

identity where all EU states produce

where all EU states also do economic

integration.

But sir the reason why EU was created is

different from the reason why ASEAN is

created.

EU was created for the fear of

fragmented polity

and lack of individual will

whereas beta when it comes to ASEAN

ASEAN was created for a different

reason.

ASEAN was created to promote economic

integration make for the world and he

further says

key Assan does not have any kind of

political issues because despite

political divergences economic

cooperation is the key. This is the case

with AEN not with EU.

In EU political congruence is important.

Political congruence means having a

democratic political system is

important.

EU places a lot of emphasis upon

democracy. Sir Assan says sir

politically you can be different and

even if you are politically different we

can still cooperate with each other

because our focus is economic

integration. So we are not here for war.

We are not here for politics. We are

here for economics.

important

Assan countries Amitabara says have

developed the ASEAN way of solving

problems.

The ASEAN way of solving problems is key

sir let's discuss regional problems

regionally

let's not take them internationally

let's not isolate countries for regional

problems

says boss if we have a regional issue

if we have problem between two ASEAN

states they can talk to each other and

solve this is not the case Amitab

Bachara says with you because he says

Sir in EU there is a different thing.

In EU the problem is sir if there is a

problem between EU states.

There is always a threat of European

Union as an entity to eject that state

from you. Eject eject means remove that

state from you.

So that means sir there is always a

sword on the states of you sir.

If any EU member today goes on to

support Russia, EU will remove that

state from the European Union sir

it will not say okay if you want to

support Russia it's your issue you sit

down with them and talk to them whatever

your issue is.

So here Amitavara says in essence AEN is

more democratic than EU which champions

democracy.

ASEAN which does not use the word

democracy is more democratic and EU

which champions democracy is not

democratic

because EU restricts your space limits

your space.

So this has to be understood very

carefully sir the general narrative is

different sir general narrative is EU is

a champion of democracy. It is not

democracy means sir you give the state

the liberty to decide its own destiny.

If somebody wants to support Russia, let

them do it, sir. What is your problem?

Essence of what is called the ASEAN?

Question. Has the international relation

theory accommodated you in academic

literature? Examine the views with

scholars.

So scholar here is the same sir. His

name is Amitab Vachary.

Amitabara says in the international

relations theory EU has been

accommodated in the literature through

the foreign policy analysis approach.

Foreign policy analysis approach says

that today

European Union

is bound to each other at three

different levels. political level

where they have a engagement at the

level of democracy.

So they welcome only those states that

are democratic. They do not welcome a

state which is not a democracy.

So in this sense there is a

policy structure that binds them

together.

Second is sir there is a economic space.

Second layer is the economic layer sir

where all countries which are part of

you are generally open economies.

Any country which violates the principle

of open economy or deviates is not a

part of you.

And third is sir personal hotline.

Personal hotline means all EU head of

the states have a direct hotline

connection with each other.

Directline connection with each other

means

key sir EU states can directly talk to

each other on call or meet in person to

resolve any issue amongst each other.

So as a result of which what has

happened is sir a eurosentric approach

has developed

that euroentric approach is called

foreign policy analysis.

This foreign policy analysis explains

European Union's politics at three

different stages that I have told you,

three different layers that I have told.

You clear

about sir, how has federalism thesis

explained the rise of you as a

politically influential block?

Explain using scholarship, sir.

The scholar here is sir Newman.

N E W M- A N Newman.

So Newman says the sir federalism is one

of the important thesis explaining the

formation of EU because it has a

normative focus.

Federalism is an important thesis

because it is it has a normative focus.

normative focus sir. He has tried to

explain that why should sovereign states

form a federation like EU.

And he says that sovereign states form a

federation like EU. Because

these states believe that there is

international anarchy

and because there is international

anarchy and because there is no central

authority

to tackle that anarchy

and because fragmented states will have

difficulty in managing international

anarchy

and all these federal states sovereign

states which were earlier fragmented

have had rivalries with each other.

So in order to prevent that rivalry, in

order to tackle that international

anarchy,

in order to ensure that

these states do not have to fend for

themselves thereby creating rivalry,

they come together to form a federation

like EU.

New

fragmentational

logo.

States

rivalry

fragmentation

or collective identity.

The possibility of conflict happening

minimizes.

Sir, how has functionalist thesis

explained to you as an economically

influential organization?

functionalism.

David Mitrani

scholars Hill and Smith. Hill

and Smith

and Smith

sir key today when we look at EU

their focus is all about low politics.

No politics

sir. Focus is on the

benefit of local people. Focus is always

on the economic growth and welfare of

the local people.

So this is basically called focus on low

politics, smaller issues, lower level

issues which are issues of the

individual states.

So they say in order to ensure success

in low politics,

states try to go for functional

cooperation.

One area is called high politics. High

politics is all about foreign policy.

Halen Smith say foreign policy is a

different ball together.

He says why will European Union states

form European Union is because of low

politics.

Low politics means issues pertaining to

the welfare of the masses and the common

people

to work for the welfare of the common

people and the masses. European Union

has been formed. States have come

together

and these states have come together to

ensure

that they establish functional

cooperation with each other

and through this functional cooperation

they ensure welfare of people within the

territory of European Union per se.

So today if European Union has allowed

movement of people within the EU

territory,

free movement of people within the EU

territory, it is a functional centric

cooperation.

If today European Union has allowed

free movement of technology from

one state of EU to another state of EU

then this is also a functional level of

cooperation.

So idea here is sir all this cooperation

happening amongst EU players

all this cooperation happening amongst

the EU players is basically driven by

the larger motive of working for welfare

of the people

point issue of low politics

Near

sir, how have the scholars of

neofunctionalism built EU as an

economically powerful dem

demographically diverse entity? Sir

Scholar here is sir Andriata

and Lewis. Andriata A and D re ATA

Andriata and leis elis

sir they say

as per the neofunctionalism

sir when EU states came together to

cooperate in technical dimensions

that coming together to cooperate in

technical dimensions has had a spillover

two other areas

When EU came together to cooperate

on certain specific dimensions, it

created a spillover.

Spillover happened to other technical

areas.

Those areas included

number one foreign policy,

number two common currency

and number three a common

political vision in global international

organizations.

Common currency establish

common policy establish international

organizations

important

common vision at the international

organization level

because today sir when EU stands in the

UN

they speak in one voice.

EU common currency,

common foreign policy, common world

views

other

scholars

Clear. We

do

clear.

Hello.

Continue.

Go there.

Anjie,

how does international relation theory

look at EU as a regional entity?

Explained using scholarship.

Two scholars are here. Crods and Mahar.

K R O T Z. CRS and Mahar. M A H A R.

So CRS and Mahar what they have said is

key sir when we look at EU as a regional

entity

we have to look at it through the prism

of history.

The history is that they say after the

collapse of the Soviet Union.

What happened at that time was that a

common unitary approach emerged in EU.

At the end of the collapse of the Soviet

Union, Soviet Union collapse about there

was a thought process amongst the

European countries that we need to build

what is called as a unitary approach.

This unitary approach was born because

they perceived that anarchy caused due

to Soviet Union has now gone away.

So they were of the opinion that Soviet

Union is a promoter of anarchy and as

the anarchy of the Soviet Union has gone

away. Now what has happened is key with

no Soviet threat present cooperation

will become easier.

So what Cros and Mahar have done is they

have tried to trace

the rise of European Union through the

Soviet prism.

They say key sir absence and decline and

ending of Soviet Union has facilitated

cooperation

[snorts]

because till the time Soviet Union was

present cooperation remained difficult

because most of the European countries

were of the opinion that we have to use

our energies to tackle Soviet threat.

Number one. Number two, they also say

sir throughout the period of cold war

most of these countries also engaged

with European with US

because they thought that US is here to

provide us security

at the time of anarchy caused by

Soviet Union.

So if Soviet Union has been identified

as a spreader of anarchy

then

to tackle that anarchy what has happened

is

that these countries have identified

that we had to cooperate with the US.

Cooperation with the US was basically

driven with the motive of preventing.

Soviets to harm us. But with the end of

the Soviet Union as a concept that

anarchy is gone, cooperation is easier.

But this is where Cros and Mahar say a

very important thing. They say sir

during the cold war period if Europeans

were engaged with US

used Europeans at that time as a market.

If Europeans used

if US used Europeans as a market

then after the end of the cold war

the creation of European Union has to be

seen as an attempt by the Europeans

to explore markets other than the US.

So problem is what during the period of

cold war

Europeans were of the opinion that US is

using us as a market but is giving us

security in return

but once that Soviet threat is over sir

we don't have to be dependent upon us.

So Crads and Mahar are saying rise of EU

as a regional entity has to be seen as a

prospective entity that aims to reduce

their dependence on US

that wants to now explore new markets

other than US. So EU as a regional

identity therefore decided

they will engage with Asians now more

freely

as they were otherwise engaging during

cold war.

So attempt of the Europeans to engage

more freely means

attempt of the Europeans to now decide

that we have to reduce our dependence on

US.

But this is where

another important point comes up which

has been given by Alexander and Jones.

J O N S Jones. Alexander and Jones two

scholars.

They say sir as

Europe is trying to reduce their

dependence on US, the US has realized

that they should not allow Europeans

to go directly with Asia

because if Europeans basically try to

decouple themselves from US,

it's a loss of market for US. So, US is

trying to design strategies to prevent

the Europeans to go to Asia.

And Alexander and Jones say that US has

succeeded in convincing

many European countries not to fall into

the orbit of Chinese Belt and Road

initiative.

The recent decision by Italy this year

to withdraw from the Bar

after accepting Bar

is a success. What Alexander and Jones

say of US policy

that Americans succeeded in preventing

Europe to emerge as an independent actor

as a regional actor that will go and

engage with the Asians.

Canada

sir. While the Europeans are determined

to engage with Asia,

Europeans want to reduce dependence on

US. US on the other hand wants Europe

not to depend upon Asia but to depend

more on US.

Getting the idea?

US does not want Europeans to be

dependent upon Asia. They want rather

that they should be dependent upon us.

So the recent approach displayed by

Italy by their refusal to go further

with the BRI

is a success of the American policy is

what Johns and Alexander say. So as a

regional identity and as a regional

entity,

EU is still a struggling block

because EU still struggles between

whether we should go independently with

Asia or should we remain with US.

So despite the Soviet threat gone,

EU is not able to portray that

individual image of its own.

How does the liberal international

theory explain the rise of

EU and marks EU

individual level? So how does liberal

international theory explain the rise of

EU and marks EU as a successful regional

entity?

So sir here the scholar is women w a y m

women

way women says sir liberals have tried

to explain EU as a very successful

project because they say sir EU has

optimistically

explored cooperation at the economic

level

says sir within the EU there is no

difference amongst EU players on why to

cooperate Right.

They all have consensus that we are here

for economic integration.

We says that EU today has a successful

liberal linking.

Successful liberal linking. This means

sir at the liberal ideology level they

are successfully integrated.

Successfully integrated.

But the problem is

EU today as an entity does not have much

to offer to the world.

So today EU is dependent upon inflow of

skilled people from outside.

If EU is today dependent upon inflow of

skilled people from outside, sir, one

thing is very clear

that EU as a regional entity has

continued to adopt liberal policies to

invite skilled populations.

Invite skilled population liberal

policy.

So what way is trying to say is sir

speaking through the liberal sense EU as

a project is successful

they are all liberal economies they are

all open economies they want to do trade

but the problem is they don't have

anything to offer in the form of trade

stagnated economies so today in order to

revive their economies there is a focus

on EU to have a liberal immigration

policy

through this liberal immigration policy.

They are seeking immigrants from abroad

who are highly skilled people