International Relations (IR) is one of the most influential fields in the world today. Everyone in the world falls under the scope of IR and is affected by it in some way. Therefore, everyone should make him or herself as aware of IR topics as possible. By becoming better educated on issues such as war, the environment, ethics, morals, and economics, we may better understand the world around us. With individual awareness will come positive change. If an issue, such as global warming, is portrayed to the public, then individuals acting collectively can bring the issue to the forefront of their governments agenda. From there, to ensure that the State’s policies are supported abroad, individual nations can work in harmony to help improve the world around us so that it is more peaceful and equal for those who inhabit it. This positive change however, starts at the individual level. To me, IR represents the framework for improving the global community, but in order for IR to be truly successful, the individuals who form the majority of a country must support State actions. Supporting local movements for positive change is the first domino to fall in the field of IR, because while individuals may not have direct control over the decisions leaders make, those same decisions are made on the behalf of the people the leaders represent. By making clear the positions society values, more effective leaders can be elected and more positive change can be expected. While this outlook on IR, as being intimately tied to the individual level as opposed to some distant field of study where a few in power make decisions, may be somewhat idealist, I think it is nevertheless important. From this perspective, people will be encouraged to stay up to date on world issues and help promote a better world. Something those in the IR field do everyday.
Afghanistan and International Financial Institutions (the World Bank) April 18, 2008
Afghanistan is considered to be, by many sources, one of the most poverty stricken countries in the world. On April 2nd 2008, the World Bank chief economist, Shanta Devarajan, for Asia stated that poor people in areas such as Afghanistan and other places are continually getting hurt economically by the increasing world food prices. Which as stated on the World Bank website at http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/COUNTRIES/SOUTHASIAEXT/0,,contentMDK:21712205~menuPK:158937~pagePK:2865106~piPK:2865128~theSitePK:223547,00.html says, “World food prices have been increasing rapidly since 2006, and the rate of increase during 2007 had been much higher than average. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), overall food prices have increased by 75 percent in dollar terms since 2000. “Most countries in South Asia are net importers of food and have suffered severe terms of trade shocks of 1 percent of GDP.” He also stated that he believes that this trend will continue to occur as a result of the rise in the cost of life in China and India. He further goes on to say that these food increases affect the poor the most in a negative way, because that is how most of people make and spend their money: on food.
As a result, he gives many solutions to help the struggling people of these poor nations such as Afghanistan to survive. The main point that he states is to “target subsidies” this can protect the poor people without causing the food to increase and allow the overall budget to decrease. Another solution is to borrow money from other countries as well as banks, but there is a side effect to this method in that it will cause price increases. However, his final solution in which he thinks will work the best is to increase efficiency in agriculture.
Another way in which the World Bank is aiding Afghanistan is with health care. On another pat of the World Bank website, http://siteresources.worldbank.org/SOUTHASIAEXT/Resources/223546-1174426445479/annex21.pdf, it states, “When the Taliban fell, Afghanistan had some of the worst health indicators in the world. It had an estimated under-five mortality rate of 256 per 1,000 births, compared to 92 for South Asia.” As a result the World Bank is making a conscious effort to improve health care in this poor country.
International Ethics April 4, 2008
There are two main forms of strategies for ethical decision making in foreign policy. The first is end-based (consequentialism) and the second is rules-based (deontology). Consequentialism stresses the importance of the overall outcome of the interaction. According to this line of thinking the conclusion that is the most moral/ethical choice available should be pursued, even if the means of reaching that conclusion are less than ideal. Conversely, deontology stresses the importance of adhering to a strict moral code. This means that the best outcome is flawed if in the process certain ethical and moral rules were not followed.
In an interview with Bob Abernerthy on PBS, reverend John Langan, a professor at Georgetown University spoke regarding ethics in Afghanistan. Father John Langan said that “the whole task of trying to stop this kind of terrorism — of restoring a sense of order and confidence in our society and the world at large — that’s morally quite important.” The following question by Abernethy raised the question of consequentialism versus deontology, “And it is important that the good likely to be done outweighs the harm that is being done, and how do you rate us on that?” Father John Langan responded by saying that he thought the good did outweigh the harm of war. (http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week509/perspectives.html)
This is a classic instance of comparing ends-based and rules-based philosophies. Reverand John Langan took a ends-based approach to the problem of ending terrorism and persecution in Afghanistan. The means of eliminating those threats, war, were acceptable so long as the final moral goal was achieved. Deontologists would argue that subjecting an entire nation to the strife of war in which civilian casualties from weapons and famine would result would nullify the positive result of eliminating a terrorist threat. Deontologists would likely stress a more peaceful process, such as promoting international pressure on the Afghan government through the United Nations.
And finally, Calvin voices his support for consequentialism…
http://www.rsrevision.com/Alevel/ethics/kant/calvin_ethics.jpg
