What IR Means to Me (!!!) Friday, Apr 25 2008 

Uncategorized christinapfaff 9:39 pm

After taking this course…

-I have a deeper understanding of contending perspectives towards issues in our world, and am able to identify different theories behind different scholar’s perspectives.  In other words, I can identify how people form their perspective on IR.  Similarly, I can analyze issues from the individual, statist, and international modes of thought. 

- I am more aware of the products I’m buying in terms of the moral and economic consequences they can have on a global level.

-IR is something that has become more of a concern for me in the upcoming election.  When I read about the election and the candidate’s views, I am often drawn to focusing on their view of the international economy, the war(s), and the status of other countries.

-Similarly, I have a newfound interest in the status of Iran since that is what we wrote our blogs on.

-I have a deeper understand on the topics of morality which affect our world today, particularly torture, which I feel very strongly against as a result of this course.

-I realize our world is smaller than I thought and we are, in actuality, much more connected.  This can be ultimately a positive thing because it makes the problem of truly understanding the global community as a working body seem less impossible and far off.  It gives us an optimistic view of the future.  

-Conversely, this course exposed to me a lot of international issues which we must play an active role in addressing!

 

Financial Institutions and Iran Friday, Apr 18 2008 

Uncategorized emilymonich 6:41 pm

Iran joined the IMF in 1945. It has, since then, passed through four phases since its membership

1) post-WW2: a reduction in foreign trade, lower oil income, and the economic problems after the war as well as food shortages that together made it eligible for the fund
2) began after after oil prices went up in 1974, creating a surplus in the balance of payments for oil exporting countries. The effect of oil prices going up has had ultimately a negative effect on the political institutions of Iran, and in turn for Iran’s international position. With more oil wealth comes less democracy for a state’s citizens (as our article by Friedman. 
3) The Islamic Revolution: a huge turning point for Iran’s relationship with the IMF. The relations consisted of the trade of obtaining information or economic reports for participation of the Central Bank personnel in the training courses offered by the IMF. 
4) In 1990 a group of economic experts for economic counseling was sent to Iran. 

Today, Iran has managed to keep a pretty stable and constant relationship with the IMF, despite major Western powers’ harsh stance against Iran for its political and ideological affiliations.           

 

 

 The World Bank is another financial institution that plays a key role in Iran.  After a seven-year hiatus from lending to Iran, the World Bank resumed its position in 2000 with two operations for health and sewerage.  The overall goal in the Country Assistance Strategy (CAS) is to facilitate the nation’s economic transition and structural reform to a more open economy. Currently, there are six projects in action: Tehran Sewerage Project, Second Primary Health Care and Nutrition Project, Environmental Management, Earthquake Emergency Project, the Ahwaz and Shiraz Water Supply and Sanitation Project, and the Urban Upgrading and Housing Reform Project.  In total, these projects add up to a total financial commitment of $791 million.  Iran aims to achieve its goals of growth and social justice, and the World Bank will assist Iran by altering the “oversized, inefficient, and untargeted” subsidies system.  The CAS plans to support water resources and sanitation, improving agricultural and environmental infrastructure, and a package than targets public transportation in urban areas, energy efficiency, and reform.  The economy is the main focus; the World Bank is formulating new economic and sector policies, their organization, and execution including economic management, public finance, improving the situation for investments, and developing human capital. 

 

Morality and Foreign Policy in Iran: Consequentialism vs. Deontology Friday, Apr 4 2008 

Uncategorized emilymonich 7:28 pm

By analyzing Iran through a consequentialist, or ends-based scope, it could be argued that the United States should take direct action in the area to quell any nuclear arms program Iran could be fostering. From this perspective, it is moral and okay to risk lives in the short term in an effort to, in the long term, save millions of people, in many parts of the world, from the dangers that could result from the use of nuclear weapons. The problem with an ends-based perspective is that ends are often difficult to predict. Analysts tend to look at short-term consequences rather than long-term ones.  In this case, it is hard to predict how long we would have to be in Iran/ how many lives we would kill in order to oust their nuclear arms program.  The political aftermath would, although hard to predict, be nasty and complicated, especially considering the United States’ current reputation and position in the Middle East as a whole. 

 

         Conversely, a deontologist, who emphasizes rules-based action, could argue that it is not moral to invade or go to war with Iran. War kills people and a deontologist could argue that the United States is already using up human lives in Afghanistan and Iraq, not to mention the killing of civilians in both these countries. Rules-based action is less conscious of an ends. Therefore, today, the United States is taking more of a deontological approach to Iran by holding back on an invasion, and is simply hoping that for now Iran doesn’t have the strength or enough resources to actually use their nuclear weapons. At the moment, no action is more morally sound than intervention.  Some people are frustrated, however, because they view Iran as a serious threat and do not believe the United States is taking a strong enough stance on Iran’s nuclear power.  However, the United States government is making a more rational decision by not taking aggressive action in Iran right now.