Announcement

**MikeH** · October 22, 2003, 07:06

OK here's the first bit:

Introduction:
Although the United States and Europe are waging the war against terror, everybody seems to be forgetting the conflict between India and Pakistan. Indeed this conflict has lasted for more than 50 years. In 1947 this region, under British Rule, was divided into two countries: India (where the majority of the population is Hindu) and Pakistan (where the majority of the population is Muslim). The region of Kashmir belonged to India until a war in 1949 divided the territory. Today there is a Pakistani Muslim part of Kashmir and an Indian part. India and Pakistan have been waging continuous war ever since. Between them India and Pakistan represent a sixth of the world population, more than China. The Kashmir issue is the bone of contention between the countries, it's become the stake in one of the more complex and long lasting conflicts since the second world war. Three wars have already broken out between the countries and they now both own nuclear weapons, which only serves to increase the state of terror. War in Afghanistan has caused tensions to rise. The Realism Theory of International Relations uses an interesting approach to understand the conflict.

I don't understand what this part is trying to say:

"How the states act, international actors who live in an anarchic world? First the theory will be analyzed and secondly this will be use to show how and why this conflict is waged. "

**Paul Hanson** · October 22, 2003, 07:08

India and Pakistan: a perpetual war

Introduction:
Although the United States and Europe are waging the war against terror, everybody is forgetting the conflict between India and Pakistan. Indeed, this conflict has lasted for more than 50 years. In 1947 this region, then under British rule, was divided into two countries: India (the majority of whose population was Hindu) and Pakistan (the majority of whose population was Muslim). But Kashmir remains to this day a problem between these two countries. In 1947 the region belonged to India but a war in 1949 divided it into a Pakistani Muslim part and another, Indian, part. Both countries have waged a perpetual war ever since. India and Pakistan represent a sixth of the world's population, more than China. The Kashmir issue is a bone of contention between the both countries, the stake in one of the more complex and long conflicts after the Second World War. Moreover, three wars have already brought these Asian countries together. They now both own nuclear weapons, which increases the state of terror. Because of the war in Afghanistan, the tension has risen. The Realism Theory of International Relations gives an interesting approach to understanding the conflict. How will the states act, as international actors who live in an anarchic world? First the theory will be analyzed and secondly this will be used to show how and why this conflict is waged.

I) - Theoretical part
The Agent Network Theory studies the relations between the actors in international relations. This actor can be a human or non-human entity. For example individuals, groups, states, supranational organizations enter the scope of this theory. The theory aims to study the connections between the actors and to see their place in a network. The agents have multiple and complex interactions, which means that they are combined together. The cycle of Thought-Action-Talk is therefore perpetual and allows us to analyze the reactions and changes in the international system. The actors have different goals, interpretations and perceptions of reality which lead to different systems. The actor can’t be considered without the system: he is a part of the network. In this theory the agents are an entity of strength, who seek power. Their goal is to fulfill their national interests.

The ANT-Theory can be completed by Realism in this study of the relations between actors with the intention to obtain power and strength. Realism is the dominant theory since the Second World War. Thucydides, with "The Peloponnesian War" and Hobbes, with "The Leviathan" are the founders of this theory. According to Hobbes, "homo homini lupus", i.e. Humans are in a perpetual war together. This can be explained by his "anthropological pessimism", the state of war is the natural state of mankind. Thanks to the State humans can live in peace under a representative but in international relations this system doesn’t exist. That’s why the state is the higher entity and the states live together in an anarchic system without law. Their goal is to follow their national interest which is power. The states also live in a world of perpetual tensions.

Thank God I'm an international relatiosn student, or I woulddn't have been able to tidy the English up in that without seriously affecting what your girlfriend was trying to say! I think I've got most of it, but you may want to see what other people come up with first.

**MikeH** · October 22, 2003, 07:08

I think that Actors is probably the wrong word. Does she mean the characters involved in the problem? She mentions "individuals, groups, states, supranational organizations enter the scope of this theory" so if 'actors' is refering to them it needs to be defined somewhere, just using the term actors doesn't mean what she's implying in English - Unless this is a well known term within the area she is writing about.

**Paul Hanson** · October 22, 2003, 07:10

They are refered to as "actors" in the study of international politics. Don't ask me why, but they just are.

**Spiffor** · October 22, 2003, 07:13

Thanks you guys

The word "actor" is pretty obvious in political sciences in French, but I have no idea for English. I assumed "character" imples the idea of a physical individual, rather than any kind of player on the international scene.

**MikeH** · October 22, 2003, 07:14

Paul didn't change as much structurally as I did and he understands what she's trying to say so use his.

**Spiffor** · October 22, 2003, 09:16

And here's the second (and last) lump of her work. Again, I have performed a first correction, but my English is still far from academia.

II) – Empirical part
1) Explanation of the India-Pakistan conflict
The conflict between Pakistan and India concerns many actors and also many systems. The subsystem formed by Pakistan and India is the first concerned. From a broader perspective, new actors appear: China, the United States, Russia and SAARC (South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation). India has a connection with the USA as an economical partner, as it is a populated country which potentially represents a huge market for the USA. But the USA keeps a close relationship with both nations. This relationship with Pakistan moved one step closer since the war in Afghanistan. Indeed Pakistan engaged with the USA in the war on terror. Russia has good connections since the Afghan revolution of 1979, but is an enemy of Pakistan. China is a member of the Asian network. Enemy of India due to power reasons, it is an ally of Pakistan. India considers China as a threat for its economical, military and political power but China is also a “big brother” for Pakistan. In the Asian system both countries are together in the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation, where they must overcome their diplomatic problems. In this international network both actors must play and try to impose their conditions, to acquire more power. Since the states have the monopoly of legitimate violence (Max Weber), they can act as they want to within their borders. Thus the international system does not oppose this conflict and the many attack on the Human Rights and on International right. As the use of terrorism and the possession of nuclear weapons show it, India and Pakistan do not respect the international right, that states that no state can have nuclear weapons except the five from the Security council of the UNO. At the beginning Pakistan and India were victims of economical sanctions, but they have become recognized owner of nuclear weapons over time. Other actors must to be taken account: the religious groups. The Muslim and Hindu terrorists present in Kashmir desire to protect their interests. The independence of Kashmir or the incorporation into Pakistan.
In this conflict many dimensions must be taken into consideration. The cultural dimension is for India very significant. Kashmir happens to be the place of origin of Nehru, one of the most important politicians of post-World War Two India, and the Province is where Buddhism originally begun. Historically India is also bounded with the Kashmir, which was always an Indian territory. Pakistan claims this region for its religion, Muslim. But India is interested in Kashmir for strategic and realist reasons. 1: It wishes increase its territory first; 2: it wishes to increase its power in the region; and 3: it aims at obtaining the control over the region’s water resources. Kashmir allows to control basin of the Indus, river which is vital for the irrigation of the cultivations and to feed the populations. In 1965 India tried to drain Pakistan. The dimensions of Kashmir are various and lead to realist acts of both countries (????).
Pakistan and India think have different outlooks on the issue. India have developed a laic view of nation since the partition in 1947: every religion has a place in the Indian nation. At the opposite, Pakistan believe that it was created to gather the Muslims in a state and that’s why Kashmir must belong to Pakistan. They have thus wrong perception of each other which leads to hostile behaviors. This attitude and these different interpretations of reality are similar to the Alsace-Lorraine issue between France and Germany. Any Indian action will get immediately interpreted as an act of war by Pakistan and vice versa. For India, the Pakistani willingness to gather the Muslims in unacceptable, as it could lead to an attempt to gather them outside Kashmir as well. This will be critical and could threaten the integrity of the Indian Nation. According to Pakistan this attitude is rejection of the Pakistan as Muslim country. The realist behavior always begins with a misunderstanding between actors. Moreover India thinks that a solution to the Kashmir issue must be bilateral, because this situation is advantageous for itself. Pakistan doesn’t agree with this view and claims for an international solution with the intervention of the UNO. To solve this problem, India has already considered every possibility: bombing, invasion or status quo. Despite these contradictions, both countries think of revenge and conflict influenced by the memory of the three wars and the ultimate goal: the pursuit of power. India aims to be the most powerful Asian country and is thus an enemy of China; and Pakistan desires to be the most influential Muslim country. They also follow their national interest. This situation is comparable to the cold war when the actors mistrust themselves and act as realist actors.
Despite this conflict India and Pakistan are encouraged to talk together to solve the conflict. The action of the other is perceived as a threat by the actor, and it deserves a reaction: although Pakistan don’t want the war according to the Prime minister, the danger is always present. India answers that they’re prepared for all eventuality, but not only nuclear. They both have different interpretations of the other’s action: India arms itself to maintain a balance of power with China and Pakistan immediately decides to develop nuclear weapons to keep the balance of terror with India. Although the Indian development of nuclear weaponry wasn’t addressed to Pakistan directly, it was so understood. The lack of communication can be made up by the use of media flaunting the military achievements. Then the Prime Minister of India or of Pakistan affirms both this action is only defensive and not offensive, but the other side has a difficult time believing it.
In this hegemonic or bipolar system (India is economically, politically and militarily superior to Pakistan) each actor acts differently according to the talk of the other. They act once, which lead to another thought, and to another talk. And the cycle of the Theory is perpetual. Pakistan an India pilot a nuclear arms race and struggle to temporary alliances according to the realist theory to maintain a certain balance and to reinforce their power. The tension is terrible between both, as shown by the many crises in Kashmir Last crisis. The perpetual war and the improbable peace, according to Raymond Aron, is actual the reflect of the situation. In spite of this perpetual tension they try to have diplomatic relations and take part in many conferences under American supervision to resolve the conflict. When one country blocks the negociations, the other automatically assumes it wants war. Even the cooperation within the SAARC is not easy for both rivals.

**Paul Hanson** · October 22, 2003, 09:37

I'm working on it, but I'm not 100% sure what your girlfriend is refering to when she refers to the "international right". Do you think you could ask her about it?

**Jon Miller** · October 22, 2003, 09:53

here is the first part

II)? The Indian Pakistan conflicts the empiricism are partial 1) explains the conflict between Pakistan and India the concerned many actors and many systems. The subsystem forms by Pakistan and India is as soon as concerns. From a broader perspective, the new actor appears: China, US, Russia and SAARC (south Asian association for local cooperation). India has with US'S connection took an economical partner, latent represents a giant market according to the original design for a US'S housing to the country. But US retains and two countries close relationship. Moved with Pakistan's this relations step approached from the war in Afghanistan. Pakistan indeed meshes with US the counter- terrorist war. Russia has the connection from 1,979 Afghan revolution year, but Pakistan's enemy. China is the Asian network member. India's enemies because the strength argued, it is the Pakistani ally. The Indian China regards as a threat for its economy, the military and the political power but China and is? Brother big? For Pakistan. In the Asian system two countries is together in the south Asia association is the local cooperation, they must overcome their diplomatic question. Must play in this international network two actors and try to impose their situation, gain more strengths. Because the condition has the legitimate violence (biggest Weber) to monopolize, they can take them to have to in theirs border. Thus the international system did not oppose this kind of conflict and many attacks to the human rights and in international right side. Took demonstrates it to the terrorism use and the nuclear weapon property, India and Pakistan do not respect the international right, that expounded, the condition is unable to have the nuclear weapon except five from the UNO Security Council. Is starting Pakistan and India is the economical approval victim, but they have the nuclear weapon to become the owner which approves in time period. Other actors must adopt the account: Religious group. Muslim religion and the India terrorist current protect their benefit in the Kashmir desire. Kashmir's independence or the incorporation enters Pakistan. Conflicts many dimensions in this kind to have to consider. The cultural dimension is India is extremely significant. Kashmir accidentally is original habitat Nehru, a post world war middle two India's most important politician, and the province is a place which Buddhism starts at first. India and in the history is certain and Kashmir, always ˆó‘æˆÀ territory. Pakistan requests this region for its religion, Muslim religion. But India is interested to Kashmir for strategic and the realism reason. 1: It first wishes the increase its territory; 2: It hoped increases its strength in this region; And 3: It aims obtains to region? S water source control. Kashmir allows to control Indus, is and feeds the population to the cultivation irrigation very important river basin. In 1965 India tried to drain Pakistan. Dimension Kashmir is various and causes the country (? ? ? ?) The Pakistan realism motion and India believed has the different outlook about the question. In 1947 India developed a national laic view from to separate: Each kind of religion has a place in ˆó‘æˆÀ the country. In opposite, Pakistan believed, it is created gathers Muslim religion in the condition and that? Does the s why Kashmir have to belong to Pakistan. They have thus wrong perception each other which cause the hostile act. This manner and reality these different explanations and the Alsace-Lorraine question are similarly between France and Germany. Any ˆó‘æˆÀ moves obtains the immediately explanation to take the act of war by Pakistan and vice versa. For India, Pakistan voluntarily gathers Muslim religion in not to be able to accept, because it can cause the attempt to gather their exterior Kashmir. This will be important, can threaten ˆó‘æˆÀ the country the honesty. Is Pakistan's rejection takes the Islam country according to Pakistani this manner. The realism behavior always starts from one kind of misunderstanding between the actor.

Jon Miller

**Urban Ranger** · October 22, 2003, 10:05

Spiffor,

The first bit, FWIW -

While the United States and Europe are waging the war against terror, everybody forgot about the conflict between India and Pakistan, one that has lasted for more than 50 years. In 1947, while under British Rule, the region was divided into two countries: India, whose majority of the population was Hindu, and Pakistan, whose majority of the population was Muslim.

Kashmir remains a thorny problem between these countries. In 1947 this region was part of India, but a war in 1949 splintered it, with Pakistan took over part of the territory. Both countries have been waging a perpetual war with one another over the disputed region ever since.

India and Pakistan represent a sixth of the world population together, more than that of China. The Kashmir issue is the bone of contention between the both countries, resulting in one of the most embroiled and bitter conflict since the Second World War. Three wars have seen these countries clashed with each other. They now both own nuclear weapons, increasing this state of terror (?? re-word ??). Tensions have increased because of the war in Afghanistan.

How will the states act, international actors in an anarchic world? The Realism Theory of International Relations gives an interesting approach to understand this. First, the theory will be analyzed. Then this will be used to show the causes and the mechanisms of this conflict.

**Spiffor** · October 22, 2003, 10:18

Paul Hanson:
I think she's referring to the International Law. Come to think of it, I should have corrected that. "right" and "law" have similar uses in French, but not in English

UR:
Wow, that's a very literate correction. A very beatiful choice of words

Jon Miller:

**Paul Hanson** · October 22, 2003, 10:24

Ah, OK then. I should be done in a few minutes.

**Paul Hanson** · October 22, 2003, 10:30

OK, I think I'm done. It might help for someone else to go over this, incase I've made any mistakes.

II) – Empirical part
1) Explanation of the India-Pakistan conflict
The conflict between Pakistan and India concerns many actors and many systems. The subsystem formed by Pakistan and India is

the most important in this situation. From a broader perspective, new actors being to appear: China, the United States,

Russia and SAARC (South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation). India has a connection with the USA as an economic

partner, as it has a large population which potentially represents a huge market for the USA. But the USA maintains a close

relationship with both nations. Their relationship with Pakistan has moved one step closer since the war in Afghanistan.

Indeed, Pakistan cooperated with the USA in the war on terror. Russia has had good connections since the Afghan revolution of

1979, but is an enemy of Pakistan. China is a member of the Asian network. A potential enemy of India because of power

considerations, it is an ally of Pakistan. India considers China as a threat, not only due to it's economic, military and

political power but also because China is a “big brother” to Pakistan. In the Asian system both countries are together in the

South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation, where they must overcome their diplomatic problems. In this international

network both actors must take part and try to impose their conditions to acquire more power. Since states have the monopoly

on legitimate violence (Max Weber), they can act as they wish within their own borders. Thus the international system does

not oppose this conflict, nor the many attacks on human rights and breaches of International law. As their use of terrorism

and possession of nuclear weapons has shown, India and Pakistan do not respect international law, which states that no nation

can possess nuclear weapons, except the five permanent members of the UN Security Council. At the beginning Pakistan and

India were victims of economic sanctions, but they have become recognized owners of nuclear weapons over time. Other actors

must to be taken into account: the religious groups. The Hindu and Muslim terrorists present in Kashmir desire to protect

their interests, which are the independence of Kashmir or the incorporation into Pakistan, respectively
In this conflict many dimensions must be taken into consideration. The cultural dimension is very significant for India.

Kashmir happens to be the birthplace of Nehru, one of the most important politicians in post-World War Two India, and the

province is where Buddhism originally begun. India also has historical ties to Kashmir, which has always an Indian territory.

Pakistan claims this region for religious reasons. But India is interested in Kashmir for strategic and realist reasons. 1:

It wishes increase its territory first; 2: it wishes to increase its power in the region; and 3: it aims at obtaining control

over the region’s water resources. Control of Kashmir allows control of the Indus basin, a river which is vital for the

irrigation of farmland and to feed the population. In 1965 India tried to deprive Pakistan of water. Kashmir is an important

region for a number of different reasons, and it is these reasons which have lead both nations to take action which could be

considered as unnecessary to those who lack an understanding of the conflict.
Pakistan and India have differing outlooks on the issue. India has developed a relaxed view of the relationship between

religion and state since the partition in 1947: every religion is welcome in the Indian nation. At the opposite end of the

scale, Pakistan believes that it was created to provide a home for all the Muslims of the subcontinent, and that is why

Kashmir must belong to Pakistan. Thus, they have developed incorrect ideas about each others intentions, and this often leads

to hostile behavior. This attitude and these different interpretations of reality are similar to the Alsace-Lorraine issue

between France and Germany. Any Indian action will get immediately interpreted as an act of war by Pakistan and vice versa.

For India, the Pakistani desire to gather the all the Muslims together is unacceptable, as it could lead to an attempt to

gather them outside Kashmir as well. This would be critical and could threaten the integrity of the Indian nation. According

to Pakistan this attitude is rejection of Pakistan as a Muslim country. The realist behavior always begins with a

misunderstanding between actors. Moreover, India thinks that a solution to the Kashmir issue must be bilateral, because this

situation is advantageous for itself. Pakistan does not agree with this view and desires an international solution with the

intervention of the UNO. To solve this problem, India has already considered every possibility: bombing, invasion or

maintenance of the status quo. Despite their contradictory positions, both countries think of revenge and conflict influenced

by the memory of the three wars they have engaged in since 1947, and both have the same ultimate goal: the pursuit of power.

India aims to be the most powerful Asian country and is thus an enemy of China; Pakistan desires to be the most influential

Muslim country. They also follow their national interests. This situation is comparable to the Cold War when the actors

mistrust each other and act in a realist manner.
Despite this conflict India and Pakistan are encouraged to talk together to solve the conflict. The action of one is

perceived as a threat by the other, and it as far as they are concerned it deserves a reaction: although, according to their

Prime Minister, Pakistan does not want war, the threat of it is always present. India's answer is that they are preparing

themselves for every eventuality, including nuclear war. They each have different interpretations of the other’s actions:

India arms itself to maintain a balance of power with China and Pakistan immediately decides to develop nuclear weapons to

keep the balance of terror with India. Although the Indian development of nuclear weaponry wasn’t a direct consequence of

Pakistani agression, this is how it was perceived by Pakistan. Because of the lack of official commnication between the two

sides, the media will be used to play up their respective nations military achievements. At this point, the Prime Minister of

India or Pakistan will state that this action is only defensive and not offensive, but the other side will have a difficult

time believing it.
In this hegemonic or bipolar system (India is economically, politically and militarily superior to Pakistan) each actor acts

differently according to the talk of the other. One of them will act, which will lead to an counter-action by the other, and

eventually to peace talks, at which point they will return to the original state of affairs. This cycle is perpetual.

Pakistan and India engage in a nuclear arms race and sign temporary alliances maintain a certain balance and to reinforce

their power, at least as far as the realist school of thought is concerned. The tension between the two nations is always

high, as shown during the last Kashmir crisis. The "perpetual war and the improbable peace", according to Raymond Aron, is

actually reflecting the situation. In spite of this perpetual tension they try to have diplomatic relations and take part in

many peace conferences under American supervision in an attempt to resolve the conflict. When one country blocks the
negotiations, the other automatically assumes it wants war. Even cooperation within SAARC is not easy for the two rivals.

**Urban Ranger** · October 22, 2003, 10:31

Originally posted by Spiffor
UR:
Wow, that's a very literate correction. A very beatiful choice of words

::bow::

The main thing is to tighten up the sentences. Try to get rid of as many and's as you can. Make the paragraphs shorter. Watch the tenses. Short sentences are fine, but mix them with longer ones.

Don't worry about fancy or big words, your lecturer should understand.

Announcement

Help Spiffor's Girlfriend writing good English

Help Spiffor's Girlfriend writing good English

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment