What IR Means To Me

My first conceptions of international relations involved how individual states, coupled with international organizations, interact with each other. However, after considering all that I have learned this semester, my entire mindset regarding international relations has been altered.

For me, international relations is much more personal than I once thought. By becoming knowledgable about one’s surroundings and about how the world functions, one can make a significant impact. For example, by obtaining information regarding genocide in other nations, a single person can become active in a non-governmental organization, such as UNICEF, and contribute directly in order to aid those suffering. By refusing to purchase clothing made in sweatshops in Asia or “blood diamonds” found in Africa, Americans can show widespread disapproval for such cruel behavior. Both of these examples are strongly moral, and since the United States often prides itself on being a beacon for freedom and morality, it is only right for Americans to advance this interest.

Domestically, by engaging in protest, one can alter the foreign policy of their country, as was seen in the United States during the Vietnam War. On a larger scale, any American can become involved in organized politics and work to facilitate lasting change in the world.

The study of international relations is incredibly broad and open-ended, but it is crucial that all people have at least some grasp of the theories of IR. Understanding realist theories regarding security and power, liberal theories involving cooperation and community, and constructivist theories involving ideas all help a person to obtain a multi-faceted view of the world. This can help them to understand how the world operates, which is the first step toward truly being an active citizen of the United States and of the entire global community. I maintain that there is an “I” in international relations – the world is a community made up of individuals, who must take responsibility first and become engaged in order for all views to be expressed and for all people to remain content.

Peacekeeping Forces and International Finance Institutions

Peacekeeping forces and IFIs are both manifestations of liberal international relations theory at work in the international system. They are two of the ways in which countries attempt to cooperate in hopes of improving every state’s situation, an idea that contrasts greatly with the realist’s “every-state-for-itself” view of state interaction in the international system.  

Although the connection between peacekeeping forces and international finance institutions may seem obscure, they have much in common. Both are methods by which the powers of the developed world intervene in the affairs of other states (supposedly) for their benefit. Because the main recipients of both peacekeeping forces and loans from international finance institutions are states from the developing sector, they receive much criticism from those who say that such methods are simply means by which developed states gain more control over developing states. Indeed, both entities put much leverage in the hands of developed states: in one case, the state has its own militant force within the country’s borders, and in the other, the developing state becomes and most often remains indebted to its donors. For these reasons (and several others), many see the motives of the developed world in each situation as questionable.

With such criticism of the international effort to improve the quality of life in developing states, one may wonder just what it would take for the situation in such areas to be remedied, and how that would occur. It is hard for one to demand a purely moral approach from developed states when providing foreign aid, because no state or individual will act without incentive to do so. It is only logical that if the developed world were to give the developed world a “leg-up,” then it should be on its own terms. Many refute this, saying that it is the developed sector that rendered these countries poor and corrupt in the first place. Yet, this statement does not change the fact that developing states need the contributions of the developed world to grow and become lucrative. Thus, the implementation of peacekeeping missions and IFIs as forms of international intervention remains an ever-controversial issue in contemporary world affairs.    

Rule-based and Ends-based Moral Tradition in Terms of Peacekeeping Forces

 Analyzing the morality of peacekeeping forces in unstable states can become exceptionally complicated. A state’s move to employ its own forces to peacekeep in another state could be thought of as an act of either rule-based or ends-based moral tradition.

One may see the act of employing peacekeeping forces in another state as following the rule-based tradition by stating that they are necessary for safeguarding against repeated outbreak of war or, more contemporarily, uncontrollable situations– ones in which human rights are violated and crimes against humanity are frequent. These situations often occur when governments are too weak or corrupt to manage such situations independently. In this manner, one may see the act of employing peacekeeping as a necessary act, moral in itself, because its purpose is “solely” (at least at face value) to protect against cruel and/or unnecessary violence and death. As the UN Peacekeeping Principles and Guidelines document indicates, the UN attempts to follow a rule-based moral tradition– peacekeeping forces employed in a certain state exist solely to maintain peace and stability in the area. Forces are called for in a state in which crimes against humanity are taking place, despite the end result. In 1999, Secretary General Kofi Annon demanded a peacekeeping force for East Timor, a then-region seeking independence from occupying Indonesia. The UN went through with sending troops to the region, despite the actions the Indonesian government could have taken against them or the civilians directly involved. Because the force sent was very small, the results of the UN’s move to implement a peacekeeping envoy cancelling out its good intentions (in some opinions, like the US providing famine relief to the Soviet Union) was a credible possibility. In this situation, the UN followed a rule-based moral tradition.

 Yet, one may also think of the employment of peacekeeping forces as the act of a state following an ends-based moral tradition. This makes sense if one says that the way in which the peacekeeping forces are employed or their means of insuring peace could be immoral, but done in the hopes of achieving the moral aim of preventing unnecessary violence/death/war. This could be said of the peacekeeping forces employed in Rwanda by the United Nations, because although they were there to protect civilians, they were removed once conditions worsened during the genocide for their safety. This action implies that the lives of the peacekeepers are more important than the lives of the civilians they were sent to protect, because unlike said civilians, they received special air operations that removed them to safety– they were thus more valued by the leaders of the international organization. The same could be said of the US peacekeeping forces sent to Somalia in 1992-93. Because 18 US soldiers were killed in an ambush, the US removed the remaining peacekeepers from the country. This is another scenario in which the lives of the peacekeepers are more valued than the civilians they were sent to protect, and correlates with the ends-based tradition of peacekeeping forces as having moral aims, but immoral means. In other words, whereas it is moral to send troops to an area with civil strife with the purpose of providing stability and security, it is immoral to assume in the initial steps of the operation that the American, French, British, etc. lives are worth more than the lives of the population they are peacekeeping.

The Ethics/Morality of Peacekeeping Forces

Currently, the United Nations has peacekeeping forces in nearly 20 countries, all of which are experiencing internal strife and, in some cases, the genocide of a minority group. Some believe that actors that have the ability to institute peacekeeping have not only the right to intervene and provide assistance, but rather, the responsibility to do so. This responsibility is rooted in morality and the idea that ending human rights violations is the “right” step to take. The purpose of the peacekeeping missions is to rebuild the infrastructure of a war-torn region and then depart when their presence is no longer deemed necessary. Ultimately, a state must become self-determined and self-ruled, which ultimately is beneficial for that state and the other states providing aid.

Since the end of World War II, state sovereignty has been greatly undermined by a desire to prevent the violation of human rights. Using morality to justify their actions, some states and international organizations have taken the initiative and entered a nation in chaos with peacekeeping forces, in hopes of stopping whatever human rights abuses may be taking place internally. Unfortunately, this has established a complicated paradox, because in order for human rights abuses to end, intervention from an outside presence is usually required. Some international theorists, including realists and communitarians, are staunchly opposed to non-intervention, but, in the case of communitarians, are also in favor of ending human rights abuses. Some balance between the two norms must be established, because choosing one norm over the other could set a dangerous precedent either way.

Peacekeeping Forces in the State

When considering foreign peacekeepers in regards to the state, one must understand the motivations of both the state(s) providing peacekeepers and the state(s) in need of peacekeepers. These motivations can be analyzed through each major IR perspective – Realism, Liberalism, Radicalism, and Constructivism.

 Through a liberal view, the state is a process, made up of competing and fluid government and societal interests. Liberals would argue that a state should send peacekeepers into another state primarily because of the moral repercussions of not providing aid. Society plays a significant role in this process, often engaging in protests and rallies in order to raise awareness, in hopes that the government will respond and provide aid. This process can be observed with the genocide in Darfur, as the public has engaged in protests, fundraising endeavors, and movies – all in hopes to dictate U.S. foreign policy.

Constructivists see the state in a similar lens – as having been shaped by society and ideas, constantly in flux. This view, which is similar to liberalism, would likely also draw open morals in order to justify sending peacekeepers into another nation.

Realists oppose these two perspectives, believing each state to be a sovereign actor, motivated by a single national interest. This national interest seeks primarily to ensure security for the state. For this reason, a realist would argue that a state only sends peacekeepers into chaotic regions when it is in their best interests – quelling violence and creating stability in another state ensures that the security of the more powerful state won’t be threatened.

 The Radical view of the state is that the state is merely a pawn for the larger goals of the bourgeoisie in that particular state and for the international capitalist structure. Radicals would believe that a state’s entry into peacekeeping would be motivated by the societal elite and its collective desire to obtain a financial benefit – the general will of the public wouldn’t play a role. For example, if a country in the Middle East, rich in oil, were to erupt in chaos, the United States would likely send peacekeepers into the state in order to ensure stability. Radicals would see this action as being motivated by the United States’ desire to reap the benefits of a stable, oil-rich nation, not as a moral act or as an attempt to ensure its own security.

Additionally, when one is analyzing peacekeeping forces in the state, it is necessary to approach the effects of such forces on the state receiving aid, rather than  simply the one giving it. To realists, a state’s acceptance of another’s military occupation is an affirmation of that particular state’s weakness; in other words, the state receiving peacekeepers acknowledges its weakness and by default allies itself with the nation lending its peacekeeping forces. The receiving nation does so in an attempt to gain stability and security from the stronger state, with sacrifices of its own international power in return.

In the liberal perspective, receiving states are those with civil unrest beyond governmental control. These situations would arise from contention between individual groups, which hold powerful sway over the policies of the state. Such cases most likely involve decisions made outside the realm of the receiving state, but by other states collaborating in international organizations. This encroachment on a state’s soveignty holds legitimacy under the premise that governments of receiving states are destabilized/biased beyond rational/responsible decision-making. The decision to deploy troops into Sudan, as an [overused-- sorry!] example, was by no means made by the leader of the Sudanese government, Omar-al-Bashir. It was instead legislated by the UN, which determined that the Sudanese government was too involved with those committing crimes against humanity to be in a position to allow or not to allow peacekeeping forces into the Darfurian region.  

Radicals, like Realists, would simply state that a state receiving peacekeepers would be defined by that act– its receipt of troops would affirm its position in the periphery stratum. Receiving states are thus the individuals exploited by the donating states.

Lastly, constructivist thought would be more concerned with the effects of peacekeeping forces. A body of people from one state would, in most cases, hold different traditions/cultures/ideals than those of the state that they are occupying. In this manner, the people of receiving states would more likely face new ideological forces that could work with, against, or transform completely their identities. Such reactions would obviously depend on extenuating circumstances, such as the duration of the peacekeepers’ stay, the differences in culture/ideas, the extent of the civil unrest within the receiving state, et cetera. Constructivists would say that the westernization of Japan is largely (almost completely) attributable to its occupation by US peacekeeping forces after World War II.

Peacekeeping Forces in the International System

The role of foreign peacekeepers in the international system changes with respect to each major IR theory– Realism, Liberalism, and Radicalism. The demand for peacekeeping forces as a moral imperative in certain circumstances has also become a norm of the international system.

Realists, seeing the world as inherently anarchic, would view peacekeepers as a tool to strengthen power, both politically and militarily. Because of the anarchic nature of the world, nations are inherently insecure and constantly in search of security. This insecurity would be increased further if other nations began to suffer from internal strife and chaos, in the form of protests, uprisings or revolutions. A powerful nation might feel even more threatened because of the possibility that another nation’s political and/or social systems could collapse. It is in the best interests of a powerful nation to send peacekeepers into nations plagued by violence, in order to ensure its own safety, but doing so also ensures a more stable international system.

Instead of seeing the world as anarchic, liberals focus on cooperation and view the international system as a process, not a structure. Much like realists, liberals are also concerned with security, but they also recognize the social and economic issues associated with the international system. Thus, liberals would view peacekeepers as an effective means to achieve improvement in social and economic spheres of nations struggling with violence. Liberals would also rely heavily upon a variety of actors, not just individual states. Peacekeepers would be deployed from international organizations, nongovernmental organizations and other actors that realists generally don’t recognize.

 The radical view on the international system is based on stratification: the core, the periphery, and the semi-periphery. Within this stratification, there exists a disparity of possession of natural resources, military power, and economic strength mainly between the core (developed states) and the periphery (developing states), in which the core is always at the advantagous end of the spectrum. Accordingly, radicals would see the role of peacekeeping forces in foreign states as a means for the core to gain more advantages over the periphery. For example, many countries such as Somalia and Nigeria possess a wealth of natural resources, but, being developing states (periphery), they lack the infrastructure and political stability to use them to the advantage of the entire state. When looking at Somalia in particular, the country has oil deposits that could prove lucrative for the state if it were politically capable. Ethiopia has employed a military “peacekeeping” force in Somalia. Though by no means considered a “core” state, Ethiopia has more political stability and infrastructure than Somalia, but not the resources. It is thus in the position to take advantage of Somalias political situation in order to gain access to its natural oil stores and increase the security of its own borders, if not extend them unofficially.

Lastly, the tragedy of the holocaust during World War II sparked an international moral imperative for developed states to intervene during the occurrence of genocide or other large-scale human rights violations. This moral imperative leads to the demand for multi-lateral initiatives, the majority of which involve peacekeeping forces. International institutions like the United Nations and the African Union have been pressured, for example, to intervene in the Rwandan Genocide, the civil war in the DRC, the civil war in Somalia, and most recently, the Darfurian Genocide. Despite their efforts, however, peacekeeping forces overall have had little effect since the push for their implementation came to be established as a norm in the international system. In most cases, forces are either deployed too late in a crisis situation, or not enough forces are deployed to produce a substantial effect. It thus comes as a surprise that such lack of real success has not deterred their demand. The most recent push has culminated in the proposal of the largest peacekeeping force documented to be sent to stabilize the Darfurian genocide– a military body to number 26,000 troops. Whether or not such a force will be effective is in question, but it seems to suffice for the constituents of the international society to know that international institutions are making an effort.

IR Theory Applied to the Role of Peacekeepers

In the realist perspective, a peacekeeper would have an additional meaning: that of the occupying soldier, which would stand as his or her primary role. Realists would see the involvement of foreign peacekeepers as mostly a tacticul move to increase one nation’s power over the nation in which peacekeepers were deployed and others, considering that the occupying nation would have the added power of the nation it would be occupying. The role of a peacekeeper solely as a peacekeeper would always be secondary, because national security is of utmost priority. Realists would see employing peacekeepers not as a means of gaining military advantage but also political advantage. If a nation accepts that it needs another nation’s help, it psychologically is placing itself in an inferior position to that nation. In realist terms, this means the world– the peacekeeping nation has the comparative advantage, which is all that matters. In such terms, the UN move to send a force of 26,000 troops to Sudan by the end of 2008 is a strategic maneuver on the part of Great Britain, for example, who is sending 5,000 of those troops.  Omar al Bashir would have good reason to worry about neo-colonialist sentiments.

Liberals would see employing peacekeepers as an exemplification of the power of international organizations, whereas realists would only pay attention to the fact that only specific nations would be deploying the troops. Conversely, the role of the peacekeeper would actually be to keep the peace in an unstable nation, and it would be at the benefit of the organization of stable, powerful nations. These nations would collaborate to deploy peacekeepers because they feel it a necessary act to protect human rights; not to gain power. Thus applied, the UN force in DRC, numbering over 17,000, is a move to calm the tensions in the eastern mining region. Liberals would hail triumph at the recent peace treaties signed by rogue militia and the government of the DRC, saying it was a product of the diplomacy of international organizations and stability brought by their troops.

As an example of idealists’ thought, Marxists would see the deployment of peacekeepers as a tactical move to not necessarily increase power but to increase wealth– a masked imperialistic occupancy of an unstable nation that can easily be taken advantage of by a more powerful, capitalistic one. Peacekeeping is just another method in which the higher class– the modern-day bourgeoisie– would manipulate the proletariat to insure more capital gain.

 Lastly, a constructivist would view the deployment of peacekeepers as a decision influenced by several things at once. The countries contributing to the peacekeeping force would be reacting from pressure on the sides of their allies and their people to do the morally correct thing by helping to stabilize a nation. They could also be reacting to indirect pressure from enemies to exert an image of strength and control.

Semester-long Blog Topic

The blog topic we have chosen is the role of foreign peacekeepers in unstable countries such as Bosnia, Sudan, the DRC, and many others. The act of outside peacekeeping in civil disputes is a controversial issue in itself. Many African countries, for example, fear foreign intervention as a form of neo-imperialism. There is also a fine line between a foreign militant peacekeeping presence and an outright occupation of a country. Some, on the other hand, criticize the notion of foreign peacekeeping for not being involved enough. The United Nations, for instance, has stationed its largest peacekeeping presence in the DRC, a force numbering 17,000 troops, and many say such a number is still not substantial.

 Along with such questions as whether or not foreign peacekeeping is used as a remedy or a tactical maneuver, policy makers and foreign leaders must decide whether or not such involvement is feasible, which launches the power of international organizations such as the United Nations, the African Union, and the European Union into question as well. Peacekeeping forces and the extenuating circumstances influencing them are issues found at the core of international policy and theory, and thus seem to be a topic that can shed light on many facets of global politics.

International Relations on the personal level

The way international relations affects my life and how I affect it is probably seen most in my standing as a consumer. Because of cheap labor found in countries such as China and Taiwan, I am able to purchase a mass-produced clothing, for example, at much cheaper prices than I would if the products were manufactured in America. By shopping at stores such as Wal-Mart, I partake in the global exchange and fuel the forces that drive both consumer prices and labor wages down.

My power of purchase translates in other ways as well– just as using cell phones has indirectly fueled civil war in the DRC, my dependence on foreign oil is catalyzing violence not only in Iraq but also in other developing nations like Nigeria and Mauritania. The excessive use of this foreign oil and other fossil fuels will also lead to devastation of most developing nations, like Kenya, who is vastly losing resources as Lake Victoria dries up from global warming. Other countries, such as those in South-Pacific Asia, will feel the burn of our (and others’) energy emissions through monsoons, hurricanes, drought, flood, and other deleterious climate shifts.

On the flip side, my tendency as an American consumer to use lots of energy has created a demand for cleaner energy like biodiesel. This demand translates into research into and production of newer plants that poor, rural farmers of foreign nations can easily produce, like jatropha. The need for biodiesel is helping many farmers in Mali achieve economic independence as I am writing this blog.

I influence other countries in non-economic ways as well. Being a college student, for example, the grades I make register with the grades of the millions of other students in the country, and if they are good, they help to boost the national educational rank. Because nations compete, my influencing a good national educational standard will influence other nations to rise to that standard as well. In theory, at least.

All of the affects I have seem pretty obsolete in the grand scale. It is how these actions accumulate that great change is produced.

Monumental event [test blog]

As cheesy as this may sound, the day my mom bought me my first horse was an event that has changed my life to such an extent that it has divided my life into two eras: pre- and post-Niko.

 Niko was a stubborn, chunky horse that I had started riding in my weekly lessons. Having already ridden for about four years, I had given up hope of ever having my own. At this point in my life I had already had a certain, semi-egotistical view of myself. I thought I had an idea of what hard work is, of what responsibility is, and because of this I also presumed myself to be rather mature for my age. Niko changed all of that.

 Because horses are so expensive, my first day of owning Niko was also my first day on the job (I was fourteen at the time). To help my mom pay off the fees for Niko’s board, I worked at the barn by feeding and watering the horses, rotating the pastures, cleaning stalls, and teaching younger aspiring equestrians. When I decided I wanted to up the level of my competition by riding Niko in the Appaloosa Breed Show circuit, I started grooming and exercising my trainer’s horses to pay off lessons and other show fees, but it wasn’t enough. So, when I was fifteen, I started working in an ice cream store about twenty hours a week during the school year and full time during the summer.

The cost and responsibility of having a horse taught me numerous things, but I think the most important of all of them is a certain grasp on the concept of working for what I really want. Or maybe it was the simple fact that it gave me something to really want. I really wanted to be a part of the family at the barn. I really wanted to master the precision and finesse that elite equestrians command. Most of all, at that adolescent age, I wanted something to define me and I found it through the work I put into Niko.

In addition to changing how I spent my time, my experience with Niko changed my priorities. Although my grades were consistently good throughout my education, I never really put effort into them. By the end of my sophomore year in high school, however, I cared about my classes, and getting a scholarship to college more than anything. By devoting my time to my horse and my grades my social scene changed as well. I met wonderful, creative people that shared my work ethic and introduced me to things that never mattered before. So, in a sense, Niko was a turning point in my life because he brought about a fundamental change in me that catalyzed more change as time has progressed.