What IR means to me

Now that this course in international relations is over, I feel that I can actually relay informedly what IR means to me. IR is not just a concept, or a collection of theories about how the world and its players work together and oppose each other. IR is not just wars, diplomacy, and competition between states. IR is an entire world of people and their governments constantly trying to survive in an anarchic international system. Whether it be politically, socially, culturally, economically or environmentally, IR is the ideas, problems and solutions that surface from the constant interaction between people and states.

I play a role in IR. Everyday, when I brush my teeth with toothpaste, when I buy coffee from starbucks, when I use my Samsung cell phone I am affecting international relations. Learning about IR has only deepened my understanding that every person plays a role in international politics and international relations, whether it be through trade and consumerism, like most of us, or diplomacy and policy making, like those select few leaders.

Contemporary Latin America and the WTO

In 2005, the World Trade Organization along with the Inter-American Development Bank started the Aid-for-Trade Initiative, the goal of which was to teach developing nations how to take advantage of today’s global economy and to discuss how to build up the infrastructure and capacities of these nations. The goals of the Aid-for-Trade initiative are “underline the central importance of trade in development policies; identify the main capacity constraints to export growth; emphasize the importance of comprehensive national and regional trade strategies; highlight the need for increased and effective fi nancing; and secure political commitment on the way forward.” (http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/devel_e/a4t_e/latin_american_e.pdf)

In 2007, the Aid-for-Trade initiative Regional review for Latin America was held in Peru in order to discuss how to implement policies in this region in order to help developing Latin American nations to become more involved in the global economy and build up their own infrastructures and trading capacities. Many prominent Latin American and world officials met at this conference in Peru in order to discuss these issues. In attendance were heads of international organizations, Latin American presidents, representatives from donor agencies, ministers of trade and finance, and private sector representatives. This conference focused on discussing issues relevant to the Latin America, coming up with possible action plans, and then deciding the next steps and how to implement those action plans.

The Aid-for-Trade initiative and the conference in Peru are extremely important for Latin American nations because a lot of these nations have major financial dependence upon trade. Aid-for-Trade is trying to help the Latin American countries adjust to the changes that are coming along due to globalization and enhanced pressures to become more connected and more involved in the global market. The goal of Aid-for-Trade is to help Latin American countries to use trade and the global market economy to help reduce poverty in their nations and help promote development.

Diplomatic Crisis in South America viewed in moral terms.

In terms of international relations, the invasion by Colombian troops to Ecuadorian territory, which meant the assassination of two men (one Ecuadorian and one Colombian), has weakened the diplomatic bonds between the two nations. The controversial Venezuelan government has also shown disapproval over the event occurred. Officials of both the offended countries had deployed troops to their borders with Colombia as they argued that what had happened meant a violation of the nation’s sovereignty over its own territory. Furthermore, Ecuadorian president, Correa, and his homologous Venezuelan part, Chavez, removed their government officials from Colombia.

How to asses this situation in ethical terms? When analyzing the situation from an end-based perspective, it can be argued that the measures taken by the Colombian government to cross troops to Ecuadorian territory with the intention of bringing down one of the FARC’s head figures was morally correct and thus ethical. This is the justification the Colombian government used when it gave explanations to the international community. In recent years, the government of this country has been more successful in fighting the terrorist guerrilla and gaining control over previously FARC occupied territory. Having both the US and the EU as allies in this “fight against terrorism” Colombia has gotten stronger. I think that when weighing the goods and evil of this intervention the Government found the grater good in debilitating the FARC –until the moment its biggest enemy. In consequentialist thinking, this machiavelic strategy would be considered morally correct as the government sought to maximize the good for its people. But the fact that the consequences cannot be fully anticipated is one of the limitations of this line of thought.

It is a given that the means to achieve the desired end was what Ecuador and Venezuela questioned and condemned, thus their view on the situation can be paralleled with the deontological, rule-based, ethics of action. Since the main issue of international relations is, in this case, the disapproval of the means utilized by the Colombian military I find the rule-base scope the fittest to criticize the actions taken by Colombia. Nevertheless, through an end-based approach we can obtain a better understanding of the actions undertaken by the infringing Government.

The Role of Morality in Contemporary Latin America Foreign Affairs

If there is one thing that I have learned from taking various anthropology, political science, and international studies courses at UR it is this: morals and the concept of morality are relative. This idea is exemplified when looking at the international relationship between Latin American countries (using Venezuela as our example) and the US. Venezuela is moving to become more of a socialist state. The US, infamous enemy of socialism and any other government product of radicalism, has been at odds with Venezuela, especially with Hugo Chavez. Chavez also would not hesitate to show his dislike and disapproval of American policy and government. He blamed American hegemony over all of Latin America and what he would consider America’s almost imperialist role there for the problems in Latin America. Chavez wanted to take back Latin America for Latin Americans and reduce US influence.

Although Venezuela and the US were at odds politically, when devastating Hurricane Katrina hit the Louisiana and Mississippi area of the US wreaking a lot of damage, Chavez and Venezuela were one of the first countries to offer aid to the United States. Therefore, although Chavez and Venezuela didn’t agree with US policy and relations with Venezuela, morals came into play and Chavez reached out to help those American people who were harmed by this natural disaster. The US however, chose to reject Chavez’s offer of aid and even denied to the press that he made any offer of aid. So the morals of Chavez and the Venezuelan people were clearly seen in their reaction to this natural disaster hitting their enemy nation. The morals of the US were clearly seen as well. They would rather not accept emergency aid for their own people dying and drowning and stuck in the hurricane wrecked cities simply because the one offering the aid has been speaking out against them in the recent past. Where do the high morals of the Christian-led American government lie now if they are opposed to accepting aid from willing nations, offering forgiveness, or turning the other cheek?

Contemporary Latin America and the Role of the State

    The role of the state is a big one in current Latin American politics and policies. More and more countries are gaining more individual perspectives and roles for themselves as states on the international stage. Instead of regarding Latin America as more of a coalition of states that share the same role and power in current world politics, more and more Latin American states, such as Venezuela, are taking the role of the state to higher level.

Latin American countries, such as Venezuela, use their state power in the way that they can–through diplomacy and diplomatic relations with other states. Venezuela has been using methods of diplomacy in order to strenghten its own role in global politics as well as try to tarnish the role of the United States. As seen in class, Hugo Chavez has met with many other state leaders across the globe in an attempt to have the voice of the Venezuelan state heard on a more global spectrum. In this sense, Chavez is using his power to enhancethe role of the state and its influence on the international scene.

Venezuela, and Chavez in particular, is a big proponent on the weakening of hegemonic powers such as the US, which use imperialistic methods to infringe upon and influence other states. He is fighting for state sovereignty as well as the role of the state in global politics indead of more globalized coalitions.

State power in Venezuela also comes from how other states view it, and how its people view it. If the people of a country do not view their own state as powerful, then the state’s power source is duly affected. Venezuela has a strong leader who is attempting and somewhat succeeding in placating its people and making them see their nation as more powerful. Other states on the world scene, whether they want to or not, also recognize the Venezuelan state as powerful. Just the fact that the Venezuelan leaders and politics appear in the news and media sources of hugely powerful states such as the US shows that other states are recognizing the role of the Venezuelan state and its effect in world politics.

How have different views of the International System influenced the present of Latin America?

 

The different approaches to the International System, or the different perspectives of the international order, are such –Liberalism, Realism, Radicalism, and Constructivism- given the plurality of contexts each state finds itself in. If we view how the United States is playing its role in the International context we will see as prominent the importance they give to maintaining certain order, control, through first hand intervention in territories or other states where the situation is directly interfering with their interests. The current state of affairs will lead us to think of their presence in Iraq or Afghanistan; or even a more recent case involving NATO missiles in Ukraine which provoked the direct reply in discomfort from the Russian government.

How is this of importance to South America? In the bipolar world of the Cold War, the Communist and Socialist thought was spreading in South and Central America; the exemplary case would be the Cuban revolution. Having more Communist states was all but what the United States wanted in the American continent, thus leading to to the economical blocking of the previously referred island. Inspired in Cuba and the Marxist writings the revolution was fermenting in the South American countries. Many communist groups were acquiring power and spreading through Chile, Argentina, Uruguay, Brazil -to mention some. As a direct response to the state of affairs of the time, military dictatorships came to power in the aforementioned countries. Some a couple of years later than others, but most occurred around the same time. In Uruguay, for example, the dictatorship lasted since the parliamentary chambers were dissolved by President Bordaberry in 1973 until 1983 were the military regime ended for the country to reinstall Democracy in 1985. It has not been until a some years ago when the different governments disclosed the files and archives from the military times that the United States involvement was proved certain. The most famous case is the “Plan Condor” which had the military governments from Argentina, Chile, Brazil, Uruguay, and Paraguay, allied with the CIA acting in concert to cover each other’s backs and maintain the power. This would be an example of how the United States does not hesitate in intervening where it sees that what goes on affects its power-seeking interests.

I find that the actions undertaken by the United States can clearly be understood if viewed through the Realist perspective of the International System. In an Anarchic world the strongest remains in power as long as it keeps the power, in which case if threatened it has to secure. In the other hand, there were the revolutionary groups which intentions can be understood from the Radical perspective of the International System. For example, Cuba which insists on the righteousness of their political system since they are against the stratification the International System brings along with and hope to change it.

But what it is clear nowadays is that South America does not hold, as a general body, any of the two views previously mentioned, if not that it is, instead, going trough its most important process in the twentieth century; that of forging its own identity after centuries of control, domination, and external intervention.

 

Theories seen in Reality? A Look at Venezuelan Foreign Policy

Currently, the situation in South America is very much so coinciding with the readings that we have been discussing in class. This is especially true in what has been happening in Venezuelan foreign policy under the leadership of Hugo Chavez. After many domestic problems and occurrences being resolved under his presidency in Venezuela, Chavez decided to move his focus to foreign policy, especially regarding the US in 2004. Chavez’s influence and stance in world politics exemplifies the theory of radicalism on a world scene that’s dominated by the neoliberal ideology of the US. This just goes to show that what many political theorist seem to think as a growing hegemonic power (the US and neoliberalism) has not squashed all opposition yet. Chavez’s Venezuela is yet another example of multipolarity on the world stage with regard to foreign policy.

Chavez is opposed to the neoliberalist, capitalist foreign policy of the US. He shows the influence that Marxism has in his politics in this way, and takes a page from Lenin’s book in opposing any form of imperialism. He has spoken out in UN conferences and has made quite clear to the world his intentions to restore power to the indigenous peoples of South America starting in Venezuela. As stated earlier, he is against neoliberal globalization. In my opinion, he is definitely catalyzing changes internationally in increasing subtle and not so subtle opposition to US foreign policy to the chargrin of US political leaders and interest. International theorists and the like should definitely keep an eye on the Venezuelan leader, because it seems to me that he is inciting an opposition to US policy and politics and threatening the possibility of a neoliberal hegemon at least in the Americas.

Chavez’s goal in his reforms domestically is to move Venezuela into a completely socialist nation through social and economic reform. With regard to international relations, this is very significant because it shows, contrary to some articles that we have been reading in class, that socialism and other radical theories were not crushed in reality when the Soviet Empire fell. In fact, it seems to me that the world is not so much moving towards a complete liberalist globalized hegemony because nations like Venezuela are showing that there is indeed opposition to the ideals of some Western countries like the US. Venezuela is playing her oil card in dealing with international relations as well. Chavez knows the power he holds and intends to use it. I think that Venezuela’s influence on other Latin American countries is significant as well because the opposition to neoliberalism is growing as Venezuela’s influence is growing.

Topic for the Semester

Dana and me are particularly interested in posting about the political situation in Latin America, which is so hot right now given the ammount of emerging progressive-leftist governments. The main issue here is how some of those governments are somewhere beyond simple progressive countries and are somewhat socialist (some countries even appear to be somewhere beyon socialism). A clear example of this is the role Venezuela and his spokesman/president Hugo Chavez. How does this affect International Relations?
Just some days ago Hugo Chavez called for the union of some Caribean countries ( Venezuela included) to become a block anti U.S. How does this affect International Relations? I’ll let it speak for itself!

Not to get caught up only with what Chavez says about “Mr. Danger” (as he calls President Bush) I also want to clarify that Venezuela’s brief example was no more than that, and example . This semester we will not only try to keep you updated and informed about the situation in Latin America if not that we will try, after an objective presentation of the situation, to convey our personal opinions, both from my Latin American and Dana’s North American perspectives, as I.R. students.

Blog Topic

The topic that we will be focusing on throughout the semester will be the current political situation in Latin America considering the recent emergence of progressive and leftist governments.

I affect International Relations…everyday

When I watch TV, drive my car, accidentally leave the lights on in my room, fail to recycle, drink non fair trade coffee, and buy clothes not made in the United States, I am affecting International Relations. The seemingly normal everyday actions I take affect people across the globe. How you ask? Well the answer to that is simple. The world is increasingly becoming a globalized market. My t-shirts and ipod were made in China, some of the video games I play were designed and produced in Japan, some of the what should be out of season fruits and vegetables I eat are shipped in from South American countries. By driving my car everyday I am literally fueling international competition over oil and am part of the cause of gas prices going up because of the laws of supply and demand. In this simple action I am also doing my part to increase greenhouse gas emissions and deplete natural resources so that I can drive to Ukrops which is less than a mile away. My actions have reprecussions on a global scale and contribute to international policy and problems.

International relations also affect me everyday as well. Because of a group of terrorists and a few militant extremist dictators and political groups halfway across the world, I have a relation who was shipped to Iraq to help fight the war to supposedly make this world a better place. On a lighter note, the internet, which I am on for a good part of each day, allows me to listen to the latest rock bands out of Russia, or talk to my friends that are studying in different countries. In a way, I am part of a virtual global community because of the internet and I am relating to my peers in different areas of the world. When drought, famine or disease occurs in parts of the world I am also affected. Certain products that may have been readily and cheaply available previously would then become more pricey or less readily available.

Although I may feel that I am insignificant on a global scale most of the time, when I think about it, I realize I have a big role in international relations and vice versa.

honestly! think about how many cups of coffee college students go through everyday