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.