Chapter 1 The Cold War Era

This chapter provides context for understanding contemporary world politics, which is largely considered to have begun after the conclusion of the Cold War. Therefore, an analysis of the Cold War serves as an appropriate starting point for the subject matter of this book.

The period was dominated by the rivalry between two global superpowers: the United States of America (USA) and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). These two nations emerged as the main centers of power following the end of the Second World War.

These images symbolize the military successes of the US and USSR towards the end of the Second World War, foreshadowing their post-war dominance.

A significant event that underscored the tensions of the Cold War was the Cuban Missile Crisis in October 1962. Leaders in the USSR were concerned about a potential US invasion of communist-ruled Cuba, an ally receiving Soviet diplomatic and financial aid. Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev decided to install nuclear missiles in Cuba, bringing US cities within striking range for the first time from such close proximity.

Upon discovering the missile sites three weeks later, US President John F. Kennedy and his advisors sought the removal of the weapons while wishing to avoid a full-scale nuclear conflict. Kennedy ordered a naval blockade (quarantine) of Cuba to intercept Soviet ships. This confrontation brought the world to the brink of nuclear war, known as the Cuban Missile Crisis. Fortunately, both sides ultimately showed restraint, and Soviet ships turned back, averting a direct military clash and providing immense global relief.

The Cuban Missile Crisis was a critical moment of the Cold War. This term refers to the period of intense competition, tensions, and confrontations between the US and the Soviet Union and their respective allies. While it involved numerous conflicts and proxy wars in various regions, it crucially **did not escalate into a 'hot war'** or direct military confrontation between the two superpowers.

The Cold War was more than just a competition for power or influence through military alliances and maintaining a balance of power. It was fundamentally driven by a deep **ideological conflict** over how political, economic, and social life should be organized globally.

• The Western alliance, led by the US, represented the ideology of liberal democracy and capitalism.
• The Eastern alliance, led by the Soviet Union, was committed to the ideology of socialism and communism.

The Second World War (1939-1945) concluded with the defeat of the Axis Powers (Germany, Italy, Japan) by the Allied Forces (US, Soviet Union, Britain, France). This global conflict resulted in widespread devastation and loss of life.

The war ended dramatically when the United States dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945, prompting Japan's surrender. The decision to use atomic weapons is debated: critics argue it was unnecessary as Japan was close to surrendering and was intended to curb Soviet gains and demonstrate US supremacy. Supporters contend it was necessary to end the war quickly and minimize further casualties, both American and Allied.

Regardless of the specific reasons for the bombings, their aftermath cemented the rise of the US and USSR as the two preeminent global powers, capable of shaping international events.

The nature of the Cold War was heavily influenced by the existence of nuclear weapons possessed by both superpowers. This led to the concept of **'deterrence'**. The logic is that when two adversaries possess nuclear capabilities capable of inflicting unacceptable destruction upon each other, a full-scale war becomes highly improbable. Neither side would risk initiating a conflict where the potential destruction outweighs any conceivable political gains. Even a first strike aimed at disabling the opponent's nuclear arms would likely leave enough retaliatory capacity for devastating counter-attacks.

Thus, while the rivalry was intense, the threat of mutually assured destruction (MAD) inherent in nuclear arsenals kept the conflict 'cold', preventing it from becoming a direct shooting war between the superpowers. This deterrence ensured global survival by preventing another world war.

The military aspect of the Cold War required the superpowers and their allies to act rationally and responsibly, understanding the catastrophic risks of nuclear conflict. Responsibility meant exercising restraint to avoid escalating tensions to the point of a world war.

These images show the scale of destruction caused by the atomic bombs in 1945. However, compared to the thermonuclear weapons developed later, which had yields potentially a thousand times greater ($10,000 - 15,000$ kilotons vs $15 - 21$ kilotons), the potential destruction during the peak Cold War period was vastly higher.

The Emergence Of Two Power Blocs

The two superpowers actively sought to expand their influence globally, resulting in the formation of two opposing alliance systems that divided the world into two camps. Smaller states were expected to align with a superpower for protection against rivals, often regional neighbors.

This division was most evident in **Europe**, which became the primary arena of superpower conflict. Western European nations largely aligned with the US, forming the 'western' alliance, while Eastern European nations joined the Soviet camp, forming the 'eastern' alliance.

The **western alliance** was formally established as the **North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO)** in April 1949. It comprised twelve states agreeing that an armed attack on any one member in Europe or North America would be considered an attack on all, requiring collective defense.

The **eastern alliance**, led by the Soviet Union, was the **Warsaw Pact**, created in 1955 specifically to counter NATO's forces in Europe. Superpowers sometimes used military influence to bring countries into their spheres, as seen with Soviet actions in Eastern Europe.

Outside Europe, the US built alliances like the Southeast Asian Treaty Organisation (SEATO) and the Central Treaty Organisation (CENTO) in Asia and the Middle East. The Soviet Union and China cultivated close ties with countries like North Vietnam, North Korea, and Iraq in response.

This map visually represents how Europe was divided by the Cold War into the NATO (blue) and Warsaw Pact (red) military alliances.

Even though the superpowers possessed immense military power, they actively sought alliances with smaller states for strategic benefits:

• Gaining access to vital resources like oil and minerals.
• Acquiring strategic territory for positioning troops and launching operations closer to rivals.
• Obtaining listening posts and surveillance locations for spying.
• Gathering collective economic support to share military costs.

Allies also reinforced the ideological competition, providing a symbolic victory by demonstrating loyalty to a superpower's political and economic system.

The formation of these blocs raised concerns among newly independent nations about maintaining their sovereignty. However, cracks also appeared within the alliances, notably the Sino-Soviet split in the late 1950s and their brief border conflict in 1969.

A key development offering an alternative to joining either bloc was the **Non-Aligned Movement (NAM)**, which allowed newly decolonized countries to stay out of the superpower alliances.

Arenas Of The Cold War

The Cold War was marked by several crises and limited wars in specific regions around the world. These regions are referred to as the **'arenas'** of the Cold War, where confrontations occurred or threatened to occur between the alliance systems without escalating into a global war involving direct superpower military conflict.

Key examples of these arenas include:

• Korea (1950-1953)
• Berlin (1958-1962)
• The Congo (early 1960s)
• Vietnam (prolonged conflict with superpower involvement)
• Afghanistan (late 1970s - late 1980s)

While these conflicts caused significant casualties, they were contained, preventing a nuclear war and global hostilities. The logic of restraint, born from the understanding of nuclear devastation, became increasingly evident as crises unfolded.

Countries outside the main blocs, particularly non-aligned nations, sometimes played important roles in reducing Cold War tensions and mediating crises. For example, India's Jawaharlal Nehru helped mediate during the Korean War, and the UN Secretary-General was a key mediator in the Congo crisis. These actions demonstrated efforts to de-escalate conflicts.

Despite the restraint in avoiding direct war, the rivalry led to a massive **arms race**. Mutual suspicion drove both sides to build huge stockpiles of conventional and nuclear weapons, constantly preparing for potential conflict. The logic was that having sufficient arms was necessary to *prevent* war through deterrence, but there was always the risk of war due to miscalculation, misunderstanding intentions, or even accidents involving nuclear weapons.

Recognizing the inherent dangers of the arms race, the US and USSR eventually decided to collaborate on **arms control** efforts. Starting in the 1960s, they signed agreements aimed at limiting or eliminating certain types of weapons to maintain a stable balance. Significant treaties included:

• Limited Test Ban Treaty (LTBT, 1963): Banned nuclear tests in the atmosphere, outer space, and underwater.
• Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT, 1968): Aimed to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons beyond the initial five nuclear states.
• Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM Treaty, 1972 - part of SALT-I): Limited defensive missile systems.

These were followed by several rounds of Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT I & II) and Strategic Arms Reduction Treaties (START I & II) to further limit strategic offensive weapons.

Key events during the Cold War include:

These cartoons by Kutty offer an Indian perspective on Cold War developments, such as the evolving relationship between the US and China ("Political Spring") and the challenges faced by the US in the Vietnam War ("Food for Thought").

Challenge To Bipolarity

Amidst the world's division into two superpower-led military alliances, the emergence of the **Non-Aligned Movement (NAM)** presented a significant challenge to this bipolar structure. NAM offered the newly decolonized countries of Asia, Africa, and Latin America a 'third option' – explicitly choosing not to join either the US or the Soviet bloc.

The origins of NAM can be traced to the close collaboration among five founding leaders:

These were Josip Broz Tito (Yugoslavia), Jawaharlal Nehru (India), Gamal Abdel Nasser (Egypt), Sukarno (Indonesia), and Kwame Nkrumah (Ghana). Their meeting in 1956 was a key step towards formalizing the movement.

The first NAM summit was held in **Belgrade in 1961**, attended by 25 member states. The movement's growth was spurred by:

1. The desire for cooperation among emerging nations.
2. Increasing Cold War tensions and the expansion of its conflict arenas.
3. The influx of many newly independent African countries onto the international stage (e.g., 16 joined the UN by 1960).

Over time, NAM expanded significantly, including 120 member states and 17 observer countries by its 18th summit in Azerbaijan (2019). Its diverse membership made a precise definition challenging; it was often understood best by what it rejected: membership in either superpower alliance.

It is important to distinguish non-alignment from related concepts:

• Not Isolationism: Isolationism means withdrawing from international affairs (like the US foreign policy from its independence until WWI). Non-aligned countries, including India, were actively engaged globally, particularly in mediating Cold War conflicts to promote peace. Their collective resolve to stay non-aligned gave them strength to resist superpower pressures.
• Not Neutrality: Neutrality is a policy of not participating in wars. Neutral states do not take positions on the morality or justification of a war and are not required to help end one. Non-aligned states, however, were sometimes involved in conflicts and actively worked to prevent or resolve wars between others.

New International Economic Order

Beyond mediating conflicts, the non-aligned countries faced the critical challenge of economic development and poverty alleviation. Most were classified as Least Developed Countries (LDCs). Sustainable economic development was seen as essential for true independence, preventing continued reliance on richer, often former colonial, powers.

This led to the concept of a **New International Economic Order (NIEO)**.

A significant report by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) in 1972, titled "Towards a New Trade Policy for Development," outlined proposals for reforming the global trading system to benefit LDCs. These included:

• Giving LDCs greater control over their natural resources.
• Improving LDCs' access to Western markets to boost their trade benefits.
• Reducing the cost for LDCs to acquire **technology** from Western countries.
• Increasing the **role of LDCs in international economic institutions**.

Economic issues gained prominence within NAM, especially from the mid-1970s, transforming it into a sort of economic pressure group. However, the NIEO initiative lost momentum by the late 1980s, primarily due to strong, unified opposition from developed nations, while the non-aligned countries struggled to maintain internal unity.

India And The Cold War

As a key leader of the Non-Aligned Movement, India's foreign policy towards the Cold War had two primary aspects:

1. Deliberately avoiding involvement in the military alliances led by the US and USSR.
2. Actively voicing opposition to other newly decolonized nations joining these alliances.

India's approach was neither negative nor passive; it was an **active policy of engagement**. As Nehru articulated, non-alignment was not about retreating from global affairs but about actively participating to moderate Cold War rivalries. India sought to bridge differences between the blocs and prevent conflicts from escalating. Indian leaders and diplomats frequently served as intermediaries, such as during the Korean War.

India also worked to strengthen regional and international organizations that were independent of the superpower alliances, believing they could play a constructive role in easing tensions.

Beyond its international role, non-alignment directly served India's national interests in two significant ways:

• It allowed India the freedom to make independent foreign policy decisions based on its own national interests, rather than being constrained by the interests of the superpowers or their allies.
• India could strategically balance its relations with the two superpowers. If pressure was exerted by one side, India could lean towards the other, ensuring that neither alliance could take India for granted or exert undue influence.

India's policy of non-alignment faced criticism:

1. It was accused of being **'unprincipled'**. Critics argued that India prioritized its national interests over taking clear, firm stands on important international issues.
2. It was deemed **inconsistent or contradictory**. The 20-year Treaty of Friendship signed with the USSR in August 1971, particularly in the context of the Bangladesh crisis, was seen by some (especially outside observers) as India effectively joining the Soviet alliance, contradicting its non-aligned stance. The Indian government justified this treaty as necessary for diplomatic and military support during the crisis, maintaining that it did not preclude good relations with other countries, including the US.

Non-alignment was primarily a strategy developed within the Cold War context. With the disintegration of the USSR and the end of the Cold War in 1991, non-alignment, both as a global movement and a core element of India's foreign policy, saw a reduction in its direct relevance to the superpower rivalry.

However, non-alignment embodies core, enduring values:

• The belief that decolonized states share common experiences and can be influential if they unite.
• The principle that smaller, less wealthy nations can pursue independent foreign policies and do not need to align with major powers.
• The commitment to democratizing the international system and working towards a more equitable world order that addresses existing imbalances.

These foundational ideas remain relevant even after the Cold War era has concluded.