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.