Hi everyone,

Anyone feeling like discussing IR-2018 questions?

Below are my responses to questions in Paper 1 and 2. You are more than welcome to discuss and assess my approach to the asked questions. And I will value ur suggestions because I am not a regular student of IR, and my understanding of the subject is only '6-months' deep.

Paper 1.

Q 2: Evolution of IR.

I made 3 major headings:

i. main events: treaty of westphalia, birth of nation state, french revolution, american civil war, renaissance in europe, colonialism, post colonialism, world wars, recognition of IR as a subject in 1920s. every event had its impact on the subject.

ii. major writers: john locke, thucydides, carl von clausewitz, immanuel kant etc etc. And how their writings provided the foundations for the theories of IR .

iii. great debates: realism v liberalism, positivism v post positivism, neo-neo and 4th one (whatever its name is).

Q 3: Convergence and Divergence in neo-realism & constructivism.

Divergences: realism believes that anarchy is permanent feature and is a structure of international order. constructivism says that "anarchy is what states make of it". so anarchy is not a structure but a process through which states perceive threats and interests etc. Realism stems from positivism, constructivism from post positivism.

convergences: both believe that 'anarchy' exists.

Q 7: Globalisation.

Yes I agree that it has transformed national culture and politics. It has given rise to 'identity politics' and different responses on issues of immigration, free trade and supra-national government. Some are for it, and some are against it. e.g. Brexit is an example of saying no to free flow of people and goods across UK's borders. whereas, France is an advocate of supra-national government i.e. EU. and so on.


Q 8: Pre-emptive self-defense: US attack on Iraq.

Int law scholars are divided on the isssue of legitimacy of pre emptive defense. Each side forwards its own reasons.
I personally think that US attack on Iraq was illegal. Why? because there was no imminent threat from Iraq (Saddam hussen didn't threaten to attack the US after or before 9/11). Iraq wasn't supporting al-qaeda. No WMD were found in Iraq (so again no imminent threat). And other peaceful options were not exhausted like negotiations or involvement of mediators etc. and also world opinion was against the attack so US's thinking was not shared by many countries except UK and few more countries.

Paper 2

Q 3: strengths and liabilities of Containment policy.

i. Marshall plan. (successful policy because it made allies economically strong)
ii. NATO. (success in terms of deterence but it also instigated USSR to create its own defence alliance: Warsaw pact. so rivalry became reinforced. and russian block became 'sealed').
iii. Proping up of 'pro-US' dictators in aisa and africa: (successfully at that time but it has backfired now. caused resentment in the people.)
iv. promotion and propaganda of liberal economy: (very successful. as soon as USSR broke into parts, many countries rushed to embrace liberal economy and came under the wings of the US and allies).

Q 6: Contentious relations between Pak & India.

lets put Kashmir and other territorial disputes aside for a moment,because we can't resolve them by merely wanting to resolve them. We need to take some steps to enhance trust and friendship between the two countries, and then we can come back to these issues. then we will have better chance of solving them. So, what should we do:

i. economic interdependence: in line with liberal theory of economic interdependence, we should increase bilateral trade. and blah blah blah.

ii. People to people contact: in line with democratic peace theory, we should increase people- people contact. because we are both democracies, and in line with democratic peace theory it is expected of us to resolve our disputes peacefully. blah blah blah

iii. consulting international institutions: we should rely and depend more on the UN etc for mediating and adjudication.

iv. put an end to arms race: break this cycle of arms race. we should find a way to get out of security dillemma and building confidence between us.

I also mentioned how SAARC has become essentially dead because of pak-india rivalry.

Q 7: Possibility of settlement of Kashmir:
(unlike Bosnia) UN is not sending Peace forces because there is no human-emergency in Kashmir. Clashes and fights spark up from time to time, but there is no 'war' in Kashmir.
(Unlike East timor) the resolution of UNSC regarding plebiscite in Kashmir was passed under chapter 6 not 7. so its not binding. should have been passed under chapter 7.
furthermore, it is very complicated issue, because for one thing Raja of Kashmir abdicated in favor of India so you have legal issues of succession as well. and second thing, pakistan also controls some part of the Kashmir and both India and Pakistan agreed upon LOC so there you have another issue of territorial control.
Possible settlement: Both sides will have to make some compromises. Settlement plan proposed by Musharraf seems most workable to me.

Q 8: Taliban - Afghanistan challenge.
Honestly, I wasn't sure what was required of us in this question. (thank you paper setter for making this question vague for me )
But anyway I attempted this question and gave few recommendations of my own. (like if I was somehow more qualified than pak, us, china, russia and afghan diplomats combined
I made a point that Taliban want the US out of their country before even their coming to the negotiation table. It could be a trap. because if the US leaves and the Taliban decide that they don't want to uphold their part of the deal, what will happen then? what the guarantee that the Taliban won't pick up their arms again and won't sabotage the government and peace process.
So the US should stay in Afghanistan, but elections should be held in provinces turn by turn. Lets see how Taliban behave after elections and how they run the government in their stronghold provinces.


Observation: The paper was fine. except for few ambiguities in the questions, maybe questions needed to be rephrased properly.
One or two mcqs were also vague. It seemed like paper setter was try to play pun on words. because more than one options seemed like suitable answer.

What are your thoughts??