PYQ Vault · Paper 2 · Changing International Political Order

Do you agree with the view that the USA uses NATO as a traditional tool of strategy to perpetuate its hegemony in the world?

How the answer moves

The flow snapshot — the routes in, the body, the counter-view and the routes out.

Flow snapshot — how the answer moves
Intro routes

Route 1 NATO 1949, US-led mutual defence pact vs USSR; Warsaw Pact 1955 → agree on the purpose, dispute the method → hegemony perpetuated, but not by coercion

Route 2 the question’s premise is realist (Mearsheimer: hegemon strengthens self, weakens rivals) → NATO’s post-1991 record fits that purpose → but the method is consent, not coercion

Body flow

realist premise stated (Mearsheimer) → NATO outlives the enemy it was built against → institutionalises US military leadership in Europe → carries American influence eastward into the former Soviet space → Hurrell: Cold War’s end frees the USA from geopolitical constraints, less tolerant of alternative orders → Ukraine war read partly as a contest over that expansion → European strategic autonomy discouraged → pivot: how the alliance holds its members → US backing for European reconstruction and integration → allies “bandwagon” instead of balancing → Gramsci: leadership by consent vs by force beats a purely material account → explains the alliance holding together after the Soviet threat went

Counter-view

a pure instrument of American will would obey → Europe resents being “dragged into” US confrontations → “Sinatra Doctrine” impulse → separate China policy → burden-sharing: “fund its security” → Rapp-Hooper’s “alliance deficit”

Conclusion routes

Route 1 agreement must be qualified → hegemony perpetuated by consent → consent can be withheld

Route 2 Zakaria: the future of that hegemony turns on America’s capacity to adapt

Model answer

Handwritten, in the form it would be written in the examination hall.

Handwritten model answer — UPSC PSIR 2024, Changing International Political Order