What international relations means to me.

I think a lot of people get the impression that international relations is simply politics.  But international relations is not just the relationship between two states.  Sure things like treaties and trade agreements are important to global politics – but they don’t even begin to scratch the surface of explaining what IR really is. 

The other aspect of international relations, the underestimated aspect, is the role of the individual.  Individuals make decisions that effect international relations every day.  Decisions that we have to think about can influence the way the world works.  We choose what we purchase.  We buy products in that were manufactured outside the United States.  Literally anything we buy can be the drop in the metaphorical bucket of IR that sends ripples throughout the bucket/world. Have you ever read the back of any Apple product?  They proudly display that their product was ‘Designed in California.’  But if you look closer, it says “Produced in China” in smaller letters right below that.  What about clothes?  Is there anything in your closet that isn’t made in China, Cambodia, or Taiwan? But international relations isn’t just about what we choose to buy.  We’ve all seen those television ads for the programs that feed starving children around the world.  They claim that for a nickel a day you can save a starving child suffering on the other side of the world.  These humanitarian decisions are also international relations.  Whether we choose to act or not makes a difference.  Many people think that there is nothing they can do to help.  But everyone is capable of making a difference.  There is nothing that says that you have to change the world – but it is definitely possible to help change one person’s life for the better.  

International relations is so much more than just international politics – if IR was just international politics, wouldn’t they call it that instead?  International relations, to me, represents the power of not only governments to create change in this world – but individuals too.  Individuals can made a difference.  And while our role in international may not be as apparent, we are just as important to world affairs as the government.  International relations is what gives people significance. It makes us all think of the consequences of our actions – no matter how big or how small that action may be.  International relations has opened my eyes to what it means to be a part of this world.  In this case, the cliché is true – we really are connected to everyone else on this world. 

” Russia and International Financial Institutions”

            Over the years, the World Bank has shown a great deal of support towards Russia by putting forward over 40 projects (adding up to over 6 billion) to structurally reform and develop the country.  Due to the administration of the previous leader, the Soviet government did not sign an agreement to become a member of the international financial institution till the early 1990s.  It was only in 1991 when the Soviet Union applied for membership in the IMF and four organizations of the World Bank Group.  The World Bank showed significant approached to improve the financial position of Russian easing the transition from central planning to a market economy to minimize human costs in Russia.

            The financial crisis in Russia (1998 ) highly depended on the funds of The World Bank.  The macroeconomic crisis included; a disaster in exchange rates, the banking system, and unsustainable public debt.  The World Bank went forward in loaning Russia with adequate money help to put forward new economic development projects.  

            Over the years, Russia’s relationship between the World Bank has evolved into a strong partnership based on: global initiatives, knowledge sharing, policy dialogue, and joint analytical work- promoting the growth and development.

Russia ethics/morality in international relations

 Most of us would agree that general war has had large impacts on history and our world today.  By being confronted with general war and the struggle to gain or sustain power , respective powers tend to disregard the central issues of morals and ethics. Their solitary goal becomes restricted to conquer and occupy the enemy’s territory as well as taking control over their economic recourses. 

Although NGO’s have gained their power over the last few decades much was different during the post Cold War period as Russia tried to limit the operations of these organizations. People would frequently wonder what their fear was against the involvement of these peaceful organizations. The main problem was centered on the decision makers (high government officials, communist rulers) who were known for their power in controlling the lives of the soviet people. Under communist regime, the USSR used most of their spending on costly nuclear arms due to their strong belief in their security dilemma.  They feared that the new policies (put forward by the NGOs) would restrain their political power leading them to having less control within their boarders. 
 
Other than their different moral values, (having a communist background) Russia in the past frequently screened the specific events in their history.  A good example would be the secret protocols known as the German-Soviet Non-aggression Pact.  This arrangement divided the independent countries of Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, and Romania into Nazi and Soviet spheres of influence.  Through this event, all of the countries were forced to cede their territory by the Soviet Union or Germany under Nazi rule.  This event could be perceived as an ethical/ moral problem of both Russia and Germany due to the fact that they did not have the consent from the countries which were indirectly involved.  
Since then much has changed due to Russia’s permanent membership on the UN Security Council in 1991 however, these ethical/moral problems from the past can be considered to have an effect on their future.

The Cold War from an Ends-Based Perspective

It is easy to look at the Cold War from both an ends-based and a rule-based perspective. However, I feel that looking at the war from an ends-based theory is what can really explain why the Cold War didn’t turn into a ‘hot’ war. 

The real reason that the Cold War didn’t escalate in to a whole blown war was the idea of  Mutually Assured Destruction – or MAD.  If the Soviet Union fired a nuclear weapon at the United States – the United States was going to fire one right back at the Soviets.  This would turn into the ultimate shootout leading to the complete destruction both the US and the USSR (and probably the rest of the world too).  It was generally accepted by the American people that the entire population dying would be a bad thing.  And maybe I’m speaking for the Russians when I say this – but I’m pretty sure they though the idea of being annihilated with nuclear weapons was interpreted as bad thing too.  Consequentialism’s goal is to ‘maximize the good’ and maximizing the good is generally pretty tough when everyone’s dead.

So it was the consequences that kept us from giving into the temptation of using our nuclear arsenal.  The consequences of nuclear war were a form of deterrence.  In this case, the only way to maximize the good (aka – live) was to not shoot the enemy.  Nuclear deterrence was the only way to bring about greater good and lesser evil simultaneously.  The US and the USSR simply used the threat of war in order to prevent the consequences from becoming a reality.  The use of nuclear weapons had the most extreme consequences the world had ever known – apocalypse.  And in the end, that is what saved us in the Cold War.  Consequenialist decision-making is what kept the Cold War from heating up. 

“Russia and the role of the state”

Even after their ideological struggle, Russia had become one of the world’s largest constitutionally-socialist dominating powers. Russia alike many states, is lead by a president who has authoritative rule over the whole state. He, himself has the power of leading the pluriform multi-party system which was exercised by the central government. As we all know from history, Russia has been recognized as its own state for a fair amount of time. Even under Stalin’s communist regime, Russia had the ability to influence its surrounding countries and to control the outcome of specific events. During the period of the Cold War, Containment was their main ideology which allowed inequality and increased rivalry amongst different countries. Since the period of the Cold War, USSR used “compellence” (forced power) against their rivalries in order to gain political support and increase expansion. This created a disruption in their state in that it didn’t gain national security. Although even under dictatorial rule, Russia attained her tangible source of power with the help of her dominating power in natural recourses, geographical size and enormous population.

 However after the collapse in communism (1991) Boris Yeltsin agreed to follow the idea of “deterrence” in order to prevent aggressive action against surrounding states. (This in the past was the reason for their conflicts.) The idea of deterrence was positive in that it allowed stability and peace amongst the people of the state. This idea reflected upon the realist notion that “the state act independently of their society” and that the person in power does have an affect on the outcomes of events throughout history. By exercising a new approach of their ideology, the state was in unity as it shared sovereignty among neighboring countries.

The International System and the Soviet Union.

It seems that over the years Russia has dabbled in just about every international system there is.  The most effective lens in which to view the Russian / Soviet international system would be a realist approach which deals with issues of polarity.  In the nineteenth century they tried out multipolarity along with Great Britain, Austria, France, and Prussia.  And that system worked fairly well for Russia for a while. But the system that the Soviet Union is most well known for is a bipolar system. 

The Cold War era is perhaps the best example of a Bipolar system.  A Bipolar system simply means that power is divided evenly between two states that together hold the majority of economic strength, military power, and cultural influence.  According to our textbook, alliances in a bipolar system tend to be long term and relatively permanent.  This can illustrated by the fact that the majority of communist states fell under the influence of the Soviet union and most democratic states (and the majority of Western Europe) fell under the influence of the United States. 

Even though fundamental principles between the two key powers in a bipolar system tend to be near opposites, each side preferred negotiation rather than fighting a face-to-face war with each other in this new, nuclear age.  Rather than engage the other head on, a series of smaller conflicts arose and were indirect confrontations between the two powers.  These smaller conflicts did not run as great a risk of leading to nuclear proliferation as a direct war most certainly would have. 

When a bipolar system becomes strong – as it did in the Cold War – our text also explains that international organizations lose their influence and effectiveness.  An example of this would be the United Nations during the Cold War.  There were three main international organizations during the cold war – The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the Warsaw Pact, and the United Nations.  NATO was one of the many faces of the United States influence while the Warsaw Pact was a representation of the Soviet Union.  These two organizations were representations of the alliances that made up each of the great powers.  These organizations were prominent during the war because of what they symbolized.  However, the United Nations was left in the middle without a side and without real purpose.  During the peak of conflict, the United Nations tried, but failed, in making any impact on the conflict.  The UN had members from both sides of the conflict that made any sort of decision-making impossible.

In the end (as we all know), the Soviet Union collapsed and took the Bipolar system down with it.  But the Cold War does serve as a chilling example of what the Bipolar system is capable of.  However many do regard the Bipolar system as the most stable international system.  Kenneth Waltz perhaps puts it best in a quote found in our text.  The two key powers are “able to both moderate the other’s use of violence and to absorb possibly destabilizing changes that emanate from uses of violence that they do not or cannot control.”  It is this that ensures that each power will strive to preserve the balance of power in order to preserve itself and the system as a whole.  This is why the end of the Bipolar system was not due to one power overcoming another – it ended because the Soviet Union fell apart from the inside out. 

Theoretical Perspectives on the Soviet Union

Over the years, the history, political, social and economic issues concerning the USSR has had a great impact on the western civilization.  It is a fact that the Soviet Union emerged from World War II as one of the world’s superpowers. Since then, the USSR maintained its position for the few decades through its powerful domination in Eastern Europe (Eastern bloc) through its use of military and economic strength as well as introducing the theories of idealism, Marxism and Leninism. Without these theories, would not have what we see Russia today. These theories provide the filter in which we view the world and help facilitate different views on how we react for the future.

 Idealism can be interpreted as the willingness to sacrifice self interest for higher moral goals which the USSR followed. For the soviets, any idea other than communism was not considered as idealism (more or less the lack of idealism). The communism idealism reflected upon the optimistic idea of achieving a perfect utopian society under self-sacrifice. In theory, communism created a classless society of abundance and freedom which was the ideal of the soviets in their time which we all know marked the beginning of the cold war. 

Along with the idealist theory, Marxist ideology had the efforts to convince people to accept and recognize its immoral truth.  Marx believed that global problems progress through five different stages, but above all believed that capitalism will produce internal tensions which will lead to its destruction. His promises involved the inability of the world’s working class to prevent war and its rejection of internationalism for nationalism.

Finally, Leninism had become one of the dominant branches of Marxism. Leninism refers to various related political and economic theories elaborated by Vladimir Lenin. Leninism holds that capitalism can only be overthrown by revolutionary means. Reform and survival were the key aspects of his theory which in later years Russia perused.  During the period of Stalin’s rule in the USSR, Marxism-Leninism was proclaimed as the official ideology of the state which in later years Mao (China) adapted and converted into Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. All theories mentioned on the above are what shape Russia today.

Topic of choice

The Soviet Union

Impacts of WWII and the Cold War and how it affects our world today.

- – How I affect international relations – -

It’s hard to believe that many of the simple choices I make everyday can have some sort of impact on something as big as international relations.  But little things – things people rarely even think about – can have much bigger consequences than they could ever imagine. Maybe a (kind of) creative example would help to illustrate this concept. I’m bit of a school supply aficionado.  Colored pens and papers are my calling.  (Only not really, but for the sake of my sort of creative example – lets say I am)  Maybe I would choose to buy the pens from the Chinese company instead of the American company because I get a bonus pastel purple pen in addition to the standard colors advertised.  When I make the decision to give into the temptation of the pastel purple – the impact is greater than my new ability to create pleasantly colored notes.  My decision to purchase foreign products represents something much larger.  Something global.  My simple decision has repercussions throughout the international economy. I choose to purchase products that are manufactured on foreign soil by foreign companies.  But the most important fact is that my purchase was my decision.  I get to choose what products I purchase, what food I eat, what clothes I wear, what type of car I drive.  And each of these individual decisions contributes to something much bigger than myself.  It is these decisions that make up a significant part of International Relations.  These decisions give direction not only to the national economy, but also the international economy.  Time for another (more serious) example!  Gas prices.  We all know and don’t love them.  But what do we do about it?  We grin and bear it.  We pay them anyway.  And that allows OPEC nations to continue raising oil prices because in our country we have no other choice than to pay them.  Or do we?  Imagine if we all started to carpool.  Imagine if we all decided to give public transportation a try.  Imagine if we bought hybrid cars.  What would happen to oil prices then?  Would OPEC nations still be able to charge the nation nearly 100 dollars per barrel even if the demand for oil was significantly less than it is in the status quo?  What many individuals fail to realize is that they can make a difference.  This world is not one of only corporate labels.  We, too, have a place in international politics – our role just might not be as obvious. 

Hello world!

Welcome to WordPress.com. This is your first post. Edit or delete it and start blogging!