NCERT Textbook - Security in the Contemporary World | Polity and Constitution (Prelims) by IAS Masters - UPSC PDF Download

 Page 1


Overview In reading about world politics, we 
frequently encounter the terms 
‘security’ or ‘national security’.  Do 
we know what these terms mean?  
Often, they are used to stop debate 
and discussion. We hear that an 
issue is a security issue and that 
it is vital for the well-being of the 
country. The implication is that 
it is too important or secret to be 
debated and discussed openly.  
We see movies in which everything 
surrounding ‘national security’ is 
shadowy and dangerous.  Security 
seems to be something that is 
not the business of the ordinary 
citizen. In a democracy, surely this 
cannot be the case. As citizens of 
a democracy, we need to know 
more about the term security.  
What exactly is it?  And what are 
India’s security concerns? This 
chapter debates these questions. 
It introduces two different ways of 
looking at security and highlights 
the importance of keeping in mind 
different contexts or situations 
which determine our view of 
security.
Chapter 5
Security in the 
Contemporary World
The concern about human security was reflected in the 
1994 UNDP’s Human Development Report, which contends, 
“the concept of security has for too long been interpreted 
narrowly… It has been more related to nation states than 
people… Forgotten were the legitimate concerns of ordinary 
people who sought security in their daily lives.” The images 
above show various forms of security threats.
Chapter 5.indd   63 14 September 2022   11:03:54
2024-25
Page 2


Overview In reading about world politics, we 
frequently encounter the terms 
‘security’ or ‘national security’.  Do 
we know what these terms mean?  
Often, they are used to stop debate 
and discussion. We hear that an 
issue is a security issue and that 
it is vital for the well-being of the 
country. The implication is that 
it is too important or secret to be 
debated and discussed openly.  
We see movies in which everything 
surrounding ‘national security’ is 
shadowy and dangerous.  Security 
seems to be something that is 
not the business of the ordinary 
citizen. In a democracy, surely this 
cannot be the case. As citizens of 
a democracy, we need to know 
more about the term security.  
What exactly is it?  And what are 
India’s security concerns? This 
chapter debates these questions. 
It introduces two different ways of 
looking at security and highlights 
the importance of keeping in mind 
different contexts or situations 
which determine our view of 
security.
Chapter 5
Security in the 
Contemporary World
The concern about human security was reflected in the 
1994 UNDP’s Human Development Report, which contends, 
“the concept of security has for too long been interpreted 
narrowly… It has been more related to nation states than 
people… Forgotten were the legitimate concerns of ordinary 
people who sought security in their daily lives.” The images 
above show various forms of security threats.
Chapter 5.indd   63 14 September 2022   11:03:54
2024-25
Contemporary World Politics
64
What is s ecurity ?
At its most basic, security implies 
freedom from threats. Human 
existence and the life of a country 
are full of threats.  Does that 
mean that every single threat 
counts as a security threat? Every 
time a person steps out of his or 
her house, there is some degree 
of threat to their existence and 
way of life. Our world would be 
saturated with security issues if 
we took such a broad view of what 
is threatening.
Those who study security, 
therefore, generally say that only 
those things that threaten ‘core 
values’ should be regarded as 
being of interest in discussions 
of security. Whose core values 
though? The core values of the 
country as a whole? The core 
values of ordinary women and men 
in the street?  Do governments, on 
behalf of citizens, always have the 
same notion of core values as the 
ordinary citizen?
Furthermore, when we speak 
of threats to core values, how 
intense should the threats be?  
Surely there are big and small 
threats to virtually every value we 
hold dear.  Can all those threats 
be brought into the understanding 
of security? Every time another 
country does something or fails 
to do something, this may damage 
the core values of one’s country.  
Every time a person is robbed 
in the streets, the security of 
ordinary people as they live their 
daily lives is harmed. Yet, we 
would be paralysed if we took 
such an extensive view of security:  
everywhere we looked, the world 
would be full of dangers.
So we are brought to a 
conclusion:  security relates only 
to extremely dangerous threats—
threats that could so endanger 
core values that those values 
would be damaged beyond repair 
if we did not do something to deal 
with the situation.
Having said that, we must 
admit that security remains a 
slippery idea.  For instance, have 
societies always had the same 
conception of security?  It would 
be surprising if they did because 
Who decides about 
my security? Some 
leaders and experts? 
Can’t I decide what 
is my security?
Taming Peace 
Have you heard of ‘peacekeeping force’? Do you think this is 
paradoxical term?
© Ares, Cagle Cartoons Inc.
Chapter 5.indd   64 14 September 2022   11:03:55
2024-25
Page 3


Overview In reading about world politics, we 
frequently encounter the terms 
‘security’ or ‘national security’.  Do 
we know what these terms mean?  
Often, they are used to stop debate 
and discussion. We hear that an 
issue is a security issue and that 
it is vital for the well-being of the 
country. The implication is that 
it is too important or secret to be 
debated and discussed openly.  
We see movies in which everything 
surrounding ‘national security’ is 
shadowy and dangerous.  Security 
seems to be something that is 
not the business of the ordinary 
citizen. In a democracy, surely this 
cannot be the case. As citizens of 
a democracy, we need to know 
more about the term security.  
What exactly is it?  And what are 
India’s security concerns? This 
chapter debates these questions. 
It introduces two different ways of 
looking at security and highlights 
the importance of keeping in mind 
different contexts or situations 
which determine our view of 
security.
Chapter 5
Security in the 
Contemporary World
The concern about human security was reflected in the 
1994 UNDP’s Human Development Report, which contends, 
“the concept of security has for too long been interpreted 
narrowly… It has been more related to nation states than 
people… Forgotten were the legitimate concerns of ordinary 
people who sought security in their daily lives.” The images 
above show various forms of security threats.
Chapter 5.indd   63 14 September 2022   11:03:54
2024-25
Contemporary World Politics
64
What is s ecurity ?
At its most basic, security implies 
freedom from threats. Human 
existence and the life of a country 
are full of threats.  Does that 
mean that every single threat 
counts as a security threat? Every 
time a person steps out of his or 
her house, there is some degree 
of threat to their existence and 
way of life. Our world would be 
saturated with security issues if 
we took such a broad view of what 
is threatening.
Those who study security, 
therefore, generally say that only 
those things that threaten ‘core 
values’ should be regarded as 
being of interest in discussions 
of security. Whose core values 
though? The core values of the 
country as a whole? The core 
values of ordinary women and men 
in the street?  Do governments, on 
behalf of citizens, always have the 
same notion of core values as the 
ordinary citizen?
Furthermore, when we speak 
of threats to core values, how 
intense should the threats be?  
Surely there are big and small 
threats to virtually every value we 
hold dear.  Can all those threats 
be brought into the understanding 
of security? Every time another 
country does something or fails 
to do something, this may damage 
the core values of one’s country.  
Every time a person is robbed 
in the streets, the security of 
ordinary people as they live their 
daily lives is harmed. Yet, we 
would be paralysed if we took 
such an extensive view of security:  
everywhere we looked, the world 
would be full of dangers.
So we are brought to a 
conclusion:  security relates only 
to extremely dangerous threats—
threats that could so endanger 
core values that those values 
would be damaged beyond repair 
if we did not do something to deal 
with the situation.
Having said that, we must 
admit that security remains a 
slippery idea.  For instance, have 
societies always had the same 
conception of security?  It would 
be surprising if they did because 
Who decides about 
my security? Some 
leaders and experts? 
Can’t I decide what 
is my security?
Taming Peace 
Have you heard of ‘peacekeeping force’? Do you think this is 
paradoxical term?
© Ares, Cagle Cartoons Inc.
Chapter 5.indd   64 14 September 2022   11:03:55
2024-25
Security in the Contemporary World
65
so many things change in the 
world around us.  And, at any 
given time in world history, do all 
societies have the same conception 
of security? Again, it would be 
amazing if six hundred and fifty 
crore people, organised in nearly 
200 countries, had the same 
conception of security! Let us begin 
by putting the various notions 
of security under two groups: 
traditional and non-traditional 
conceptions of security.  
t raditional n otions : 
e xternal Most of the time, when we read 
and hear about security we are 
talking about traditional, national 
security conceptions of security.  
In the traditional conception of 
security, the greatest danger 
to a country is from military 
threats.  The source of this 
danger is another country which 
by threatening military action 
endangers the core values of 
sovereignty, independence and 
territorial integrity.  Military 
action also endangers the lives 
of ordinary citizens. It is unlikely 
that in a war only soldiers will 
be hurt or killed. Quite often, 
ordinary men and women are 
made targets of war, to break their 
support of the war.
In responding to the threat of 
war, a government has three basic 
choices:  to surrender; to prevent 
the other side from attacking by 
promising to raise the costs of war 
to an unacceptable level; and to 
defend itself when war actually 
breaks out so as to deny the 
attacking country its objectives and 
to turn back or defeat the attacking 
forces altogether.  Governments 
may choose to surrender when 
actually confronted by war, but 
they will not advertise this as the 
policy of the country.  Therefore, 
security policy is concerned 
with preventing war, which is 
called deterrence, and with 
limiting or ending war, which is  
called defence.
Traditional security policy has 
a third component called balance 
of power. When countries look 
around them, they see that some 
countries are bigger and stronger.  
This is a clue to who might be a 
threat in the future.  For instance, 
a neighbouring country may not 
say it is preparing for attack.  
There may be no obvious reason 
for attack. But the fact that this 
country is very powerful is a sign 
War is all about 
insecurity, destruction 
and deaths. How can 
a war make anyone 
secure?
Economy of war
© Ares, Cagle Cartoons Inc.
Chapter 5.indd   65 14 September 2022   11:03:56
2024-25
Page 4


Overview In reading about world politics, we 
frequently encounter the terms 
‘security’ or ‘national security’.  Do 
we know what these terms mean?  
Often, they are used to stop debate 
and discussion. We hear that an 
issue is a security issue and that 
it is vital for the well-being of the 
country. The implication is that 
it is too important or secret to be 
debated and discussed openly.  
We see movies in which everything 
surrounding ‘national security’ is 
shadowy and dangerous.  Security 
seems to be something that is 
not the business of the ordinary 
citizen. In a democracy, surely this 
cannot be the case. As citizens of 
a democracy, we need to know 
more about the term security.  
What exactly is it?  And what are 
India’s security concerns? This 
chapter debates these questions. 
It introduces two different ways of 
looking at security and highlights 
the importance of keeping in mind 
different contexts or situations 
which determine our view of 
security.
Chapter 5
Security in the 
Contemporary World
The concern about human security was reflected in the 
1994 UNDP’s Human Development Report, which contends, 
“the concept of security has for too long been interpreted 
narrowly… It has been more related to nation states than 
people… Forgotten were the legitimate concerns of ordinary 
people who sought security in their daily lives.” The images 
above show various forms of security threats.
Chapter 5.indd   63 14 September 2022   11:03:54
2024-25
Contemporary World Politics
64
What is s ecurity ?
At its most basic, security implies 
freedom from threats. Human 
existence and the life of a country 
are full of threats.  Does that 
mean that every single threat 
counts as a security threat? Every 
time a person steps out of his or 
her house, there is some degree 
of threat to their existence and 
way of life. Our world would be 
saturated with security issues if 
we took such a broad view of what 
is threatening.
Those who study security, 
therefore, generally say that only 
those things that threaten ‘core 
values’ should be regarded as 
being of interest in discussions 
of security. Whose core values 
though? The core values of the 
country as a whole? The core 
values of ordinary women and men 
in the street?  Do governments, on 
behalf of citizens, always have the 
same notion of core values as the 
ordinary citizen?
Furthermore, when we speak 
of threats to core values, how 
intense should the threats be?  
Surely there are big and small 
threats to virtually every value we 
hold dear.  Can all those threats 
be brought into the understanding 
of security? Every time another 
country does something or fails 
to do something, this may damage 
the core values of one’s country.  
Every time a person is robbed 
in the streets, the security of 
ordinary people as they live their 
daily lives is harmed. Yet, we 
would be paralysed if we took 
such an extensive view of security:  
everywhere we looked, the world 
would be full of dangers.
So we are brought to a 
conclusion:  security relates only 
to extremely dangerous threats—
threats that could so endanger 
core values that those values 
would be damaged beyond repair 
if we did not do something to deal 
with the situation.
Having said that, we must 
admit that security remains a 
slippery idea.  For instance, have 
societies always had the same 
conception of security?  It would 
be surprising if they did because 
Who decides about 
my security? Some 
leaders and experts? 
Can’t I decide what 
is my security?
Taming Peace 
Have you heard of ‘peacekeeping force’? Do you think this is 
paradoxical term?
© Ares, Cagle Cartoons Inc.
Chapter 5.indd   64 14 September 2022   11:03:55
2024-25
Security in the Contemporary World
65
so many things change in the 
world around us.  And, at any 
given time in world history, do all 
societies have the same conception 
of security? Again, it would be 
amazing if six hundred and fifty 
crore people, organised in nearly 
200 countries, had the same 
conception of security! Let us begin 
by putting the various notions 
of security under two groups: 
traditional and non-traditional 
conceptions of security.  
t raditional n otions : 
e xternal Most of the time, when we read 
and hear about security we are 
talking about traditional, national 
security conceptions of security.  
In the traditional conception of 
security, the greatest danger 
to a country is from military 
threats.  The source of this 
danger is another country which 
by threatening military action 
endangers the core values of 
sovereignty, independence and 
territorial integrity.  Military 
action also endangers the lives 
of ordinary citizens. It is unlikely 
that in a war only soldiers will 
be hurt or killed. Quite often, 
ordinary men and women are 
made targets of war, to break their 
support of the war.
In responding to the threat of 
war, a government has three basic 
choices:  to surrender; to prevent 
the other side from attacking by 
promising to raise the costs of war 
to an unacceptable level; and to 
defend itself when war actually 
breaks out so as to deny the 
attacking country its objectives and 
to turn back or defeat the attacking 
forces altogether.  Governments 
may choose to surrender when 
actually confronted by war, but 
they will not advertise this as the 
policy of the country.  Therefore, 
security policy is concerned 
with preventing war, which is 
called deterrence, and with 
limiting or ending war, which is  
called defence.
Traditional security policy has 
a third component called balance 
of power. When countries look 
around them, they see that some 
countries are bigger and stronger.  
This is a clue to who might be a 
threat in the future.  For instance, 
a neighbouring country may not 
say it is preparing for attack.  
There may be no obvious reason 
for attack. But the fact that this 
country is very powerful is a sign 
War is all about 
insecurity, destruction 
and deaths. How can 
a war make anyone 
secure?
Economy of war
© Ares, Cagle Cartoons Inc.
Chapter 5.indd   65 14 September 2022   11:03:56
2024-25
Contemporary World Politics
66
that at some point in the future 
it may choose to be aggressive.  
Governments are, therefore, very 
sensitive to the balance of power 
between their country and other 
countries.  They do work hard to 
maintain a favourable balance 
of power with other countries, 
especially those close by, those 
with whom they have differences, 
or with those they have had 
conflicts in the past. A good 
part of maintaining a balance of 
power is to build up one’s military 
power, although economic and 
technological power are also 
important since they are the basis 
for military power.
A fourth and related 
component of traditional security 
policy is alliance building. An 
alliance is a coalition of states 
that coordinate their actions to 
deter or defend against military 
attack. Most alliances are 
formalised in written treaties 
and are based on a fairly clear 
identification of who constitutes 
the threat. Countries form 
alliances to increase their 
effective power relative to 
another country or alliance. 
Alliances are based on national 
interests and can change when 
national interests change. For 
example, the US backed the 
Islamic militants in Afghanistan 
against the Soviet Union in the 
1980s, but later attacked them 
when Al Qaeda—a group of 
Islamic militants led by Osama 
bin Laden—launched terrorist 
strikes against America on 11 
September 2001.
In the traditional view of 
security, then, most threats 
to a country’s security come 
from outside its borders. That is 
because the international system 
is a rather brutal arena in which 
there is no central authority 
capable of controlling behaviour.  
Within a country, the threat 
of violence is regulated by an 
acknowledged central authority 
— the government.  In world 
politics, there is no acknowledged 
central authority that stands 
above everyone else.  It is tempting 
to think that the United Nations is 
such an authority or could become 
such an institution.  However, as 
presently constituted, the UN is a 
creature of its members and has 
authority only to the extent that 
the membership allows it to have 
authority and obeys it. So, in world 
politics, each country has to be 
responsible for its own security.
How do the big powers react when new countries claim nuclear 
status? On what basis can we say that some countries can be 
trusted with nuclear weapons while others can’t be?
© Christo Komarnitski, Cagle Cartoons Inc.
Chapter 5.indd   66 14 September 2022   11:03:56
2024-25
Page 5


Overview In reading about world politics, we 
frequently encounter the terms 
‘security’ or ‘national security’.  Do 
we know what these terms mean?  
Often, they are used to stop debate 
and discussion. We hear that an 
issue is a security issue and that 
it is vital for the well-being of the 
country. The implication is that 
it is too important or secret to be 
debated and discussed openly.  
We see movies in which everything 
surrounding ‘national security’ is 
shadowy and dangerous.  Security 
seems to be something that is 
not the business of the ordinary 
citizen. In a democracy, surely this 
cannot be the case. As citizens of 
a democracy, we need to know 
more about the term security.  
What exactly is it?  And what are 
India’s security concerns? This 
chapter debates these questions. 
It introduces two different ways of 
looking at security and highlights 
the importance of keeping in mind 
different contexts or situations 
which determine our view of 
security.
Chapter 5
Security in the 
Contemporary World
The concern about human security was reflected in the 
1994 UNDP’s Human Development Report, which contends, 
“the concept of security has for too long been interpreted 
narrowly… It has been more related to nation states than 
people… Forgotten were the legitimate concerns of ordinary 
people who sought security in their daily lives.” The images 
above show various forms of security threats.
Chapter 5.indd   63 14 September 2022   11:03:54
2024-25
Contemporary World Politics
64
What is s ecurity ?
At its most basic, security implies 
freedom from threats. Human 
existence and the life of a country 
are full of threats.  Does that 
mean that every single threat 
counts as a security threat? Every 
time a person steps out of his or 
her house, there is some degree 
of threat to their existence and 
way of life. Our world would be 
saturated with security issues if 
we took such a broad view of what 
is threatening.
Those who study security, 
therefore, generally say that only 
those things that threaten ‘core 
values’ should be regarded as 
being of interest in discussions 
of security. Whose core values 
though? The core values of the 
country as a whole? The core 
values of ordinary women and men 
in the street?  Do governments, on 
behalf of citizens, always have the 
same notion of core values as the 
ordinary citizen?
Furthermore, when we speak 
of threats to core values, how 
intense should the threats be?  
Surely there are big and small 
threats to virtually every value we 
hold dear.  Can all those threats 
be brought into the understanding 
of security? Every time another 
country does something or fails 
to do something, this may damage 
the core values of one’s country.  
Every time a person is robbed 
in the streets, the security of 
ordinary people as they live their 
daily lives is harmed. Yet, we 
would be paralysed if we took 
such an extensive view of security:  
everywhere we looked, the world 
would be full of dangers.
So we are brought to a 
conclusion:  security relates only 
to extremely dangerous threats—
threats that could so endanger 
core values that those values 
would be damaged beyond repair 
if we did not do something to deal 
with the situation.
Having said that, we must 
admit that security remains a 
slippery idea.  For instance, have 
societies always had the same 
conception of security?  It would 
be surprising if they did because 
Who decides about 
my security? Some 
leaders and experts? 
Can’t I decide what 
is my security?
Taming Peace 
Have you heard of ‘peacekeeping force’? Do you think this is 
paradoxical term?
© Ares, Cagle Cartoons Inc.
Chapter 5.indd   64 14 September 2022   11:03:55
2024-25
Security in the Contemporary World
65
so many things change in the 
world around us.  And, at any 
given time in world history, do all 
societies have the same conception 
of security? Again, it would be 
amazing if six hundred and fifty 
crore people, organised in nearly 
200 countries, had the same 
conception of security! Let us begin 
by putting the various notions 
of security under two groups: 
traditional and non-traditional 
conceptions of security.  
t raditional n otions : 
e xternal Most of the time, when we read 
and hear about security we are 
talking about traditional, national 
security conceptions of security.  
In the traditional conception of 
security, the greatest danger 
to a country is from military 
threats.  The source of this 
danger is another country which 
by threatening military action 
endangers the core values of 
sovereignty, independence and 
territorial integrity.  Military 
action also endangers the lives 
of ordinary citizens. It is unlikely 
that in a war only soldiers will 
be hurt or killed. Quite often, 
ordinary men and women are 
made targets of war, to break their 
support of the war.
In responding to the threat of 
war, a government has three basic 
choices:  to surrender; to prevent 
the other side from attacking by 
promising to raise the costs of war 
to an unacceptable level; and to 
defend itself when war actually 
breaks out so as to deny the 
attacking country its objectives and 
to turn back or defeat the attacking 
forces altogether.  Governments 
may choose to surrender when 
actually confronted by war, but 
they will not advertise this as the 
policy of the country.  Therefore, 
security policy is concerned 
with preventing war, which is 
called deterrence, and with 
limiting or ending war, which is  
called defence.
Traditional security policy has 
a third component called balance 
of power. When countries look 
around them, they see that some 
countries are bigger and stronger.  
This is a clue to who might be a 
threat in the future.  For instance, 
a neighbouring country may not 
say it is preparing for attack.  
There may be no obvious reason 
for attack. But the fact that this 
country is very powerful is a sign 
War is all about 
insecurity, destruction 
and deaths. How can 
a war make anyone 
secure?
Economy of war
© Ares, Cagle Cartoons Inc.
Chapter 5.indd   65 14 September 2022   11:03:56
2024-25
Contemporary World Politics
66
that at some point in the future 
it may choose to be aggressive.  
Governments are, therefore, very 
sensitive to the balance of power 
between their country and other 
countries.  They do work hard to 
maintain a favourable balance 
of power with other countries, 
especially those close by, those 
with whom they have differences, 
or with those they have had 
conflicts in the past. A good 
part of maintaining a balance of 
power is to build up one’s military 
power, although economic and 
technological power are also 
important since they are the basis 
for military power.
A fourth and related 
component of traditional security 
policy is alliance building. An 
alliance is a coalition of states 
that coordinate their actions to 
deter or defend against military 
attack. Most alliances are 
formalised in written treaties 
and are based on a fairly clear 
identification of who constitutes 
the threat. Countries form 
alliances to increase their 
effective power relative to 
another country or alliance. 
Alliances are based on national 
interests and can change when 
national interests change. For 
example, the US backed the 
Islamic militants in Afghanistan 
against the Soviet Union in the 
1980s, but later attacked them 
when Al Qaeda—a group of 
Islamic militants led by Osama 
bin Laden—launched terrorist 
strikes against America on 11 
September 2001.
In the traditional view of 
security, then, most threats 
to a country’s security come 
from outside its borders. That is 
because the international system 
is a rather brutal arena in which 
there is no central authority 
capable of controlling behaviour.  
Within a country, the threat 
of violence is regulated by an 
acknowledged central authority 
— the government.  In world 
politics, there is no acknowledged 
central authority that stands 
above everyone else.  It is tempting 
to think that the United Nations is 
such an authority or could become 
such an institution.  However, as 
presently constituted, the UN is a 
creature of its members and has 
authority only to the extent that 
the membership allows it to have 
authority and obeys it. So, in world 
politics, each country has to be 
responsible for its own security.
How do the big powers react when new countries claim nuclear 
status? On what basis can we say that some countries can be 
trusted with nuclear weapons while others can’t be?
© Christo Komarnitski, Cagle Cartoons Inc.
Chapter 5.indd   66 14 September 2022   11:03:56
2024-25
Security in the Contemporary World
67
t raditional n otions : 
i nternal By now you will have asked 
yourself:  doesn’t security depend 
on internal peace and order?  How 
can a society be secure if there is 
violence or the threat of violence 
inside its borders?  And how can 
it prepare to face violence from 
outside its borders if it is not 
secure inside its borders?
Traditional security must 
also, therefore, concern itself with 
internal security.  The reason it 
is not given so much importance 
is that after the Second World 
War it seemed that, for the most 
powerful countries on earth, 
internal security was more or less 
assured.  We said earlier that it 
is important to pay attention to 
contexts and situations.  While 
inter nal security was certainly               
a part of the concerns of 
governments historically, after 
the Second World War there was 
a context and situation in which 
internal security did not seem to 
matter as much as it had in the 
past.  After 1945, the US and 
the Soviet Union appeared to be 
united and could expect peace 
within their borders.  Most of the 
European countries, particularly 
the powerful Western European 
countries, faced no serious threats 
from groups or communities living 
within those borders. Therefore, 
these countries focused primarily 
on threats from outside their 
borders.
What were the external threats 
facing these powerful countries?  Again, we draw attention to 
contexts and situations.  We know 
that the period after the Second 
World War was the Cold War in 
which the US-led Western alliance 
faced the Soviet-led Communist 
alliance. Above all, the two 
alliances feared a military attack 
from each other.  Some European 
powers, in addition, continued 
to worry about violence in their 
colonies, from colonised people 
who wanted independence. We 
have only to remember the French 
fighting in Vietnam in the 1950s or 
the British fighting in Kenya in the 
1950s and the early 1960s.
As the colonies became free 
from the late 1940s onwards, 
their security concerns were 
often similar to that of the 
European powers. Some of the 
newly-independent countries, like 
the European powers, became 
members of the Cold War alliances.  
They, therefore, had to worry 
about the Cold War becoming a 
hot war and dragging them into 
hostilities — against neighbours 
who might have joined the other 
side in the Cold War, against 
the leaders of the alliances (the 
United States or Soviet Union), or 
against any of the other partners 
of the US and Soviet Union.  
The Cold War between the two 
superpowers was responsible for 
approximately one-third of all 
wars in the post-Second World 
War period. Most of these wars  
were fought in the Third World.  
Just as the European colonial 
powers feared violence in the 
colonies, some colonial people 
feared, after independence, that 
they might be attacked by their 
Browse through a 
week’s newspaper 
and list all the 
external and 
internal conflicts 
that are taking 
place around the 
globe. 
Chapter 5.indd   67 14 September 2022   11:03:56
2024-25