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.