Abstract
Security perceptions of most nations are directly linked with the real or perceived threats confronting them. Threat is a geopolitical environmental condition for which the price and penalty will have to be paid by the target state if it fails to build its own effective warding-off mechanism. To obviate real or perceived threats, nations seek power (economic, political and military). Power can lead to prosperity, and prosperity may generate more power. This process is continuous under the operative international political system, primarily because it breeds insecurities and is unable to enhance security for all. Given its inability to evolve an effective collective security arrangement, coupled with operative economic and power disparities and inequalities, the system has left nations with no option but to rely upon the age-old principle of self-help. Thus, One witnesses the phenomenon in which almost all nations are constantly striving to create that kind of power equilibrium-disequilibrium which affords them maximum security. Periodic changes in equilibrium-disequilibrium directly affect the security perceptions of nations.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
See Stephen P. Cohen, ‘US, Weapons and South Asia: a Policy Analysis’, Pacific Affairs, xlix:1, Spring 1976, p. 67.
T. B. Millar, ‘America’s Alliance: Asia’, America’s Security in the 80s, Part II, Adelphi Paper No. 174, International Institute for Strategic Studies, London, 1982, pp. 28–9.
See, Leo E. Rose, ‘The Superpowers in South Asia: a Geostrategic Analysis’, Orbis, xxii:2, Summer 1978, p. 401.
See also Geoffrey Jukes, The Soviet Union in Asia, Angus and Robertson, London, 1973, pp. 99–112;
Pervaiz Iqbal Cheema, Conflict and Cooperation in the Indian Ocean: Pakistan’s Interests and Choices, Canberra Papers on Strategy and Defence, No. 23, Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, Australian National University, Canberra, 1980, p. 37.
William J. Barnds, ‘The USSR, China and South Asia’, Problems of Communism, xxvi:6, November–December 1977, pp. 14–16.
Leaders like Acharya Kripalani (President, Indian National Congress) said that ‘neither Congress nor the nation has given up its claim of a United India’, while Sardar V. B. Patel (Home Minister) asserted that ‘sooner than later, we shall again be united in common allegiance to our country’. Cited in M. Ayub Khan, Friends Not Masters, Oxford University Press, London, 1967, pp. 115–16.
For details, see S. D. Muni, ‘South Asia’, in Mohammed Ayoob, Conflict and Intervention in the Third World, Croom Helm, London, 1980.
Mohammed Ayoob, ‘India and Pakistan: Prospect for Detente’, Pacific Community, viii:1, October 1976, pp. 156–7.
S. Irtiza Hussain, ‘The Politico-Strategic Balance in South Asia’ Strategic Studies, i:2, July–September 1977, p. 36.
For detailed exchange of notes and statements, see Khan, op. cit., pp. 129–53. See also, G. W. Choudhury, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Major Powers, The Free Press, New York, 1975, pp. 11–122;
P. I. Cheema, ‘Pakistan-American Relations: a Question of Credibility’, The Muslim, 2–4 December 1982.
David Formkins, ‘Entangling Alliances’, Foreign Affairs, xlviii:4, July 1970, pp. 688–700.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 1984 Strategic and Defence Studies Centre
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Cheema, P.I. (1984). Pakistani Perspectives on International Security. In: McMillen, D.H. (eds) Asian Perspectives on International Security. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-07036-7_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-07036-7_9
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-07038-1
Online ISBN: 978-1-349-07036-7
eBook Packages: Palgrave Political & Intern. Studies CollectionPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)