Christina and Emily's IR Weblog

What IR Means to Me (!!!)

christinapfaff — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 21:39:48 +0000

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

emilymonich — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 18:41:42 +0000

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

emilymonich — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 19:28:55 +0000

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.

Iran and Morality

christinapfaff — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 18:04:49 +0000

There is a moral/ ethical component when examining the situation in Iran in a number of fields. In terms of weapons of mass destruction, which Iran possesses and is continuing to build, there’s always a moral and ethical issue because they are incredibly destructive. Nuclear weapons pose a threat to the international community as a whole, as they have unforeseen consequences once they are used. When is it morally acceptable to use nuclear weapons? What action is morally acceptable in combating the use of/ or building of nuclear weapons?

No aggressive action has been taken by the United States in Iran. We are currently fighting two other wars where American lives are being lost, and which aren’t highly supported by the American public. We don’t want to kill any more American soldiers than we already have, because killing our men is morally reprehensible and could be deemed unnecessary, and we don’t want to kill innocent Iranians. However, it is important to note that morality has also been used as a reason we should intervene in Iran, in an effort to preserve the human rights of the Iranian citizens, who have suffered abuses at the hand of the Iranian government. As R. Nicholas Burns, Secretary for Political Affairs in Washington, D.C., said on March 27, 2007:

“The [Iranian] regime recently celebrated the anniversary of the 1979 Revolution. But the history of the past 28 years has been a betrayal of the aspirations of the Iranian people.  The regime’s record of human rights abuse remains among the worst in the world. As our recently released annual Human Rights Report emphasizes, this record has worsened over the past year. The regime denies its people freedom of expression by cracking down on journalists and bloggers, closing independent newspapers, censoring internet use and blocking satellite dish ownership—all in an effort to control its citizens’ access to information. These actions prompt a basic question: why is this regime so afraid of its own people?  We believe the Iranian people deserve better from their leaders. To counter the regime’s abuses, we are promoting greater freedom in Iran by funding a variety of civil society programs.”

Thus, morality can also, arguably, be used as veil for U. S. intervention. If we do act, are we really acting because of our moral concern for Iranians, or are we acting to uphold our reputation as a superpower, or to promote our own (other) best interests in the country…?

Iran and the State

christinapfaff — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 22:46:23 +0000

For realists, each state acts out a drive for power. The Iranian government says that its goal in developing a nuclear program is, as the New York Times writes, “the ability to generate electricity without dipping into the oil supply it prefers to sell abroad.” From the state perspective, the Iranian government is acting out its best interest in creating nuclear weapons. It is looking to increase its profits by preserving its oil supply for sales, and not using it for energy. As Mingst says, “once the state (with power and ideas) acts, according to the realists, it does so as an autonomous, unitary actor.” (104) The Iranian government, again, is acting against the wishes of the United States. It is acting out the interest of its own state, as oppose to abiding by other state’s wishes. A current article in the New York Times discussed Iran’s 29th celebration of its Islamic Revolution this month. The story focused on Ebrahim Yazdi, who helped generate the revolution that led the shah to flee Iran years ago, and how he feels the government to not be upholding more democratic ideals which he and others had originally intended for Iran. Mr. Yazdi comments that Iran “ is not a monarchy, it’s a republican state… however, the political system, basically, is a despotic one.” (NY Times, Slackman). It is possible to say that, 29 years ago, Mr. Yazdi would have had a instrumental radical view of state, believing that the state can and will change under social pressure, that of which can come during a revolution (like the one he participated in). However, it is safe to say that Mr. Yazdi view of state today is one which is constructivist. The Times notes that he, “is a staunch democrat who defines democracy not by the mechanics of governance, not by elections and institutions, but by ideas.” To constructivists, the governance of a state is liable to change as the norms, or the identity, of that state change. Mr. Yazdi works to promote his ideas in Iran, in hopes that if enough people join with him, he can change the character of the state, and as a result, more democratic ideals will start showing themselves in the Iranian government. While it may not currently appear that Iran is working towards achieving a democracy, it is important to note that part of the point of the Islamic Revolution in 1979 was to stop the tyrannic rule in Iran and begin a democracy. However, the problem is that democracy has never been incorporated into politics in the Middle East so they are learning through trial and error. Liberals believe that the state is a process, which involves contending interests; the interests and need of both society and government must be dealt with, and that is what Iran is trying to do. States must also deal with other states, which is a current issue in Iran concerning nuclear power. According to EU foreign policy chief Javier Solanato, as quoted in the New York Times, major powers are “discussing possible new moves to draw Iran into negotiations over its nuclear program while still pushing for more U.N. sanctions.” Even though oil and nuclear power seems to be the chief goal of Iran, they are by no means the only goal; on the state level, liberalists believe that there is still the potential for democracy in Iran. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/16/world/asia/16yazdi.html

Iran and the International System

emilymonich — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 22:47:36 +0000

Studying Iranian and American political relations at the International System level of analysis is interesting because each of the four contending International Relations theories emphasize different aspects of the relationship the two nations have. The main problem between Iran and the United States is Iran’s nuclear program and the question of whether or not Iran is actually utilizing it for peaceful purposes; this falls right in line with that aspect of the international system as a process not as a structure in terms of the economic, social, and security interests. The International System is anarchic, of course, thus interaction between states is key; the sense of “we-ness” found in international society is tweaked because problems between Iran and the United States have been occurring for decades. The “we-ness” exists separately for the two nations: the U.S. is concerned with militarily protecting itself and the world in relation to nuclear weapons and defending democracy and freedom, while Iran is concerned with being a strong theocratic republic and building up nuclear weapons for “peaceful purposes.” In a uni-polar world, where the United States is the one true super-power, stratification according to the radical viewpoint is interesting to look at for a few reasons. Militarily and economically, the United States is by far better off than Iran; in terms of natural resources, the United States might have more, but Iran is in possession and control of oil, an entity our lives revolve around. Iran has a certain amount of influence over the American way of living because Iranian oil revenues have skyrocketed since the implementation of the theocratic Shiite regime and the dictator Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. While it is clear that there is a truly uneven division of resources amongst these two states, seeing as the United States is considered a developing country and Iran a partly developed country, the oil possession is key. Systematic change is also very clear, seeing as Ahmadinejad became president in 2005; before he was president, the United States and Iran were working towards stronger relations. Again, from the radical viewpoint, we see a perfect example of stratification: the United States is a capitalist state while Iran is a developing state. The United Nations plays a key role in the relations between these two nations, especially when viewing the situation from a realist or liberal viewpoint; the United Nations was created out of self-interest to moderate state behavior. Largely in part due to the United States, economic and diplomatic sanctions were taken against Iran when they refused to suspend their nuclear weapons program and when they were pushed to suspend their uranium enrichment in 2006.It is interesting internationally to look at Iraq’s situation from the standpoint of the European Union, since the EU represents a huge global force commanding power in our world today. Ex-E.U. external relations officer, Chris Patten, stated that Iran’s backwardness towards human rights and unwillingness to cooperate with UN nuclear demands a grave problem facing our world. According to Patten, the EU has an “umbilical relationship” with Iran, (with trade concessions on the EU side, and social and political reforms, and guarantees that nuclear power will be limited to civil purposes on the Iranian side). He then notes that Iran has failed to uphold its side of the deal. While the EU sees hope in Iran, as a developing country with massive sway especially because of their oil reserves, they are fearful of their nuclear potential as well. Internationally, while the EU seems to view Iran just as the United States does, Patten noted that he believed the United States is unnecessarily too stringent with Iran at the present moment. Here are some websites we thought might be useful:http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2004/09/1fe3acec-1399-4222-8229-2e63d31df7c3.html http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/sc8792.doc.ht mhttp://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/iran/index.html http://www.cfr.org/publication/13503/#9 http://www.cfr.org/publication/15028/

IR Theories in Relation to the Issues in Iran

emilymonich — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 03:21:25 +0000

Many of the theories we’ve looked at in class can be used to study the issues plaguing Iran and its relationship with the United States and the rest of the international world. While they appear to be conflicting, we choose to focus on viewing the situation in Iran from both a liberal perspective and a realist perspective. We found that each theory carries evidence in the current situation, and while it is impossible to determine which theory most accurately describes the situation or reacts in the best manner, hopefully examining Iran through the lens’ of both these theories will help us to more deeply understand the differing motivations for actions taken towards Iran. For liberals, Iran presents itself as an opportunity for improvement. Since they believe that at the individual level human nature is good, it would be possible to work and co-operate with officials and representatives in Iran. The United States does not currently have political ties with Tehran, but in the liberals minds, those ties would be possible through possible cooperation with lawmakers and government officials. Liberals view Iran as also having the capability to become a liberal capitalist nation, since liberals believe in the spread of democracy as a right that all citizens should be ensured. It would be the liberals who would fight against the problem of a theocratic republic in order to create a “new Iran,” which could, in the future, fall under President Bush’s plans to spread democracy to all nations, as he has tried to in the current war in Iraq. Although, it must be noted, with the American public growing increasingly weary and outraged with the Iraq war’s progress, as well as the fact that Bush’s term is coming to an end, a war to spread democracy in Iran seems unlikely at this juncture. One last point concerning liberals: On the international level, liberals believe in collective security, which could be used to sway Iran. It is possible that Bush could try to quell any sort of nuclear action against the United States by Iran through use of a collective security group, such as NATO, which could pressure Iran to disarm its nuclear weapons. Realists would view Iran in a completely different light than liberals, simply because of their belief that human nature is inherently bad. With the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, realists would absolutely despise him because of his outward hatred of the United States, his denial of the Holocaust, and the support he provides to terrorists. At the state level, Iran’s national interest or self-interest could be interpreted as assisting terrorists (Iran is maybe the greatest state-sponsor of terrorism). The insecurity of Iran and its reliance on terrorism would be perfectly explained by realist beliefs on the international system; since Great Britain and Russia stopped being a colonial presence in Iran and the rest of the Middle East, Iran has been in complete turmoil, insecure, and in a struggle for power. The question would be raised, which power is more important: terrorist or political? Can they even be separated?As a subset of realism, it is possible to discuss President Bush’s stance towards Iran as one that falls within his neoconservative worldview. From reading The Defense Strategy of the United States, we learned that Bush takes a realist view that our country must be preemptive rather than preventative, or in other words, be the one to conduct action rather than react to the actions of other nations. After reports of Iran fostering chemical plants for substances such as uranium, which aid in the development of nuclear weapons, the Bush administration dubbed Iran as part of the “Axis of Evil.” While President Bush insists he has no plans to invade Iran, he has taken other actions against the country of Iran, such as arming Iran’s Arab neighbors with Patriot missiles, halting sales of spare jet parts because of concerns they could be transferred to Iran, and authorizing the military to kill or capture Iranian agents who are plotting attacks on U.S. forces (Time, Feb 2007). Above all, Bush strives to protect America’s democracy and security, which he has made blatantly clear is threatened by Iran and its actions. We also wanted to include some websites:http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/news/news-iran-rice-ambassador.html?_r=1&scp=5&sq=iran&st=nyt&oref=sloginhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7010962.stm

Our Topic of Interest

christinapfaff — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 04:25:10 +0000

We would like the explore the relations between Iran and the United States because the tensions between the two nations are rising, and Iran has become very prominent in the news. Our focus will be on the political relations between the two but also on current events in Iran that affect or concern the United States. Since problems between these two nations stem from many years ago, we will also dedicate time to the historical background of Iranian-American relations.

How We

emilymonich — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 01:35:39 +0000

Initially, we didn’t believe that we had much of a stake in International Relations at all. We’re just two college students, and the world is so big and complex, we found ourselves wondering, how can we really make any difference in it? Well we realize that we actually have the ability to influence IR, and do so without even realizing it. First of all, as a consumer, the choices of products we use, foods we eat, clothes we wear, and technologies we enjoy, all influence not only the American economy, but often times the economies of other country’s as well. The trend in UGG boots is a good example, and a phenomenon we ourselves partook in. The sale of UGG boots may have helped to stimulate the Australian economy, which may have helped to boost Australia’s international position among other nations. As a citizen, we vote in elections which determine those who govern this country, which in turn determines what stance our country takes towards other nations. As a student, Christina studies Spanish which makes her yet another Spanish speaker in the growing numbers of Spanish speakers in America, which can be seen as both a negative and positive attribute, and can tend to color people’s perception towards immigration policies. Emily studies French as well, which has different implications because the relations between America and French speaking nations are different than those with Spanish speaking nations. As students engaging in a liberal education, we are taught to be open minded and accepting of other cultures. This has the potential to influence international relations as we will go on to travel (hopefully in abundance) to other countries and be a (hopefully positive) representation of an American. What we are taught, not only in college, but by my parents, peers, and the media also color’s our views of other nations, which in effect influence our personal relationship with those nations. Because of the hostile atmosphere in parts of Africa, we will most likely travel to the parts of the continent that we feel certain are safe. For example, Emily has been to Africa twice (Morocco and South Africa) and tried to get the least-”touristy” view of the two countries; however, there are only a handful of places deemed safe to go in those two countries. On an even more basic level, when we travel to different nations, just as people from a different country, our interactions with others serves as a representation of America to the people we meet in that foreign nation. Our interactions have the capability to push others to form opinions and perspectives (either positive or negative ones) that establish how a nation as a whole views America. The point is, our perspectives influence our actions, which in turn can influence international relations.

My Big, Life-Changing Event

christinapfaff — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 05:08:45 +0000

If I had to pick one event in my life which significantly altered it, I would have to pick moving to the United States from Hong Kong in the winter of 1998. Not only did my immediate circumstances change with this move- the house I lived in was now in a suburb instead of a gated community, the Chicago climate was harsh and freezing, my new school was very large and unfamiliar- but also, my entire perception of the world shifted as a result of this move. Although my parents, and I, have always been American citizens, because I was born and also lived in Singapore, I had never lived before in the states. In retrospect, my life overseas was greatly different, but armed me with a more open-minde and global perspective that I sometimes believe more Americans should have. I have not been back to Asia since I have left, and I think this is another reason this move felt so monumental, as living overseas becomes to me, sadly, more and more of a distant and entirely seperate memory from my life here.