Les reflexions profondes de Catie et Kristy

What IR means to us…

b2bombers — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 21:56:29 +0000

International Relations is valuable because it is a politically related topic and yet it usually relates to much more global, substantial issues than the paper-pushing tendencies in many capital cities. IR is special among poli-sci classes because it focuses on theoretical and ethical approaches to international issues. IR contains valuable philosophical considerations, such as how different actors-the world, state and individual-would approach different issues. It provides a theoretical foundation to help us understand and appreciate why agents act the way they do. International Relations, even in its title, seems to imply worldwide cooperation for common goals. It appeals to values that we believe are universal, and in that way it can seem a noble and ethical subject. Rather than become mired down in the petty politics of water runoff in our hometown, international relations helps us to concern ourselves with getting clean drinking water to the more than 2 billion people who go every day without it. International Relations reminds us that we are part of a larger humanity, and that we are supposed to relate to them. It pulls out of our everyday rut, mired in our own-often unimportant-political debates and asks us to put our policy making to better use: to address genocide, HIV/AIDs, poverty, and, ultimately, better connect us with the rest of world.

Public Health and the World Bank

b2bombers — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 21:50:32 +0000

It is interesting to note that the lending policies of the World Bank, one of the world’s largest International Financial Institutions, are intended to do more than improving the economies of developing countries. A large part of the World Bank’s mission is also to improve health, sanitation, and nutrition in these nations in order to protect the people of the nation from the impoverishing effects of illness and communicable diseases. They are also very involved in funding health policy research, AIDS prevention campaigns, and reproductive health services. The World Bank plays a huge role in international health-care funding through its loans; according to the website of the World Health Organization, its health-related activities are now larger than those of the WHO and UNICEF. In 2002, the World Bank loans intended to help developing countries improve their health, nutrition, and population, known as HNP, totalled 1.4 billion US dollars, and this did not include additional funding of disease awareness and prevention programs. The Bank’s requirements of the countries to which it lends money often include health sector reforms to improve public health activities. The money that the World Bank provides, whether to fund public health projects or to improve the economy of a nation, is a loan that the nation is expected to repay. This differs from most humanitarian organizations, such as the Red Cross, whose funds and services are generally donated. However, many of the stated goals of the World Bank regarding public health improvement are similar to those of the WHO and many humanitarian NGO’s, and since they have a wider base of funds as well as some political sway over the counties that borrow their funds, they could arguably be more effective in long-term public health projetcs. On the other hand, since voting power in the World Bank depends on contributions, dominant developed nations such as the United States, Great Britain, Canada, France, and Japan hold over 50% of the vote. From a radical/Marxist perspective, one could argue that the World Bank’s efforts to influence the public health as well as economic sectors in developing countries only provide more of a foothold for bourgeoisie capitalist nations to exert control over the global poor. So whether the World Bank resembles a humanitarian organization or a global hegemon in this instance seems to depend on your perspective.

The Humanitarian Rule

b2bombers — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 03:07:25 +0000

     One of the most important aspects of humanitarian organizations is that they seek to be impartial in bringing aid to the people who need it most. Most have a publicly declared mission statement which defines just how the organization handles international crises. In this way, many humanitarian agencies primarily exercise rules-based ethics. They are less concerned with the political results of their actions than the immediate needs of those who are hungry or poor.
     For example, the International Red Cross Movement states that their “Movement is neutral and impartial, and provides protection and assistance to people affected by disasters and conflicts. “* And the UN’s World Food Programme seeks to meet only basic needs as well: “As the food aid arm of the UN, WFP uses its food to: meet emergency needs and support economic & social development.”** The UN World Heath Orgnanization, however, must enter the political realm because it seeks to observe and evaluate whether health needs are being met in various countries. The Organization’s mission statement claims that “It is responsible for providing leadership on global health matters, shaping the health research agenda, setting norms and standards, articulating evidence-based policy options, providing technical support to countries and monitoring and assessing health trends.” The WHO claims a much more authoritative role than the average aid organization. This branch of the UN, by nature, is much more likely to have political conflicts with states because it takes more of an oversight role. While it does support countries, it may also challenge their health practices, resulting in political tension. In this way, the WHO may also use ends-based ethics to achieve its goals. The political wheelings and dealings may not matter as long as a country eventually accepts and enforces new global health initiatives. Although a health crisis can be so serious that it requires immediate action, those health initiatives which are allowed time to be put into effect may be more likely to be established through ends-based UN effort.
   Although the UN as an international council may have the authority to challenge countries, most humanitarian aid agencies focus on simple rules-based ethics: no matter what race, religion, or political affiliation, all humans have a right to food and shelter; and that immediate needs must be met regardless of short-term or projected political consequences.

The Moral Imperative: Personal, Political, or both?

b2bombers — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 18:17:30 +0000

Ethical behavior is the driving force behind humanitarian aid organizations. Ethics probably is the political topic most closely related to humanitarian organizations. The very nature of such organizations is “the application of appropriate moral norms,” as Amstutuz writes. Very simply, aid organizations seek to provide what they perceive as basic human needs: food, shelter and medicine. The beauty of international aid organizations is that they are able to operate independently of state interests and bias’. This allows the Red Cross and other such groups to reach places that other countries may not be directly welcome. It also allows them to serve people with a lot more impartiality.
However, the premise of international humanitarian aid organizations begs important questions. Are private organizations, as collaborations of individual effort, better suited to meet the needs of the people than a politically-charged government department? Democratic governments are seen as agents of the people’s will, but does that include providing such things as food and shelter? There are countries all over the world where there is a moral imperative to meet needs and protect human rights. The questions is, where to draw the line. Do humans need to take more individual responsibility in helping with the rights/needs of others, or should the government continue to assume social responsibility? Where is the line between individual(private) and political(public) moral imperatives to be drawn?

It will be interesting to see what Amstutz’s view toward politcs/aid is when we read Chapter 2-2.

NGO’s deal with the state

b2bombers — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 23:02:58 +0000

The power of the state is important when analyzing the interaction between humanitarian aid organizations and the state they are attempting to serve. There are numerous examples of how state power has the potential to limit or inhibit the roles of humanitarian agencies within a country. By having a secure, legitimate government in place, the state can facilitate an efficient aid effort by a non-governmental organization such as the Red Cross. On the other hand, a corrupt or ineffective state government can hinder the ability of a humanitarian organization to quickly access, assess, and allocate aid properly within a country.

For example, U.S. familiarity with the Red Cross, and ability to provide a secure arena for aid, meant that the aid efforts during the recent California fires were exceptionally streamlined. However, in many countries worldwide where the state is either weak or corrupt, there is often interference with aid efforts. In Afghanistan, the Red Cross is trying to help the large number of people who are being displaced to to spreading hostilities between security forces (both Afghan and international) and the armed opposition. This problem is aggravated by the intensely cold weather which is causing further displacement, especially in the mountains. However, the Red Cross has less access within the country than ever before and is finding it increasingly hard to assess displaced people in order to help them. Since Afghanistan is currently struggling with two of the components which characterize a strong state, a stable population and a government to which the population shows allegiance, it is unable to facilitate the humanitarian aid which the Red Cross wishes to offer. The same problem is occurring in Kenya after the January post-election crisis. The extreme impact of the state’s power and stability on the workings of the Red Cross seems to support the realist perspective that the state is truly an autonomous actor in the international system, and without its support humanitarian organizations cannot hope to be effective.

A different kind of problem is occurring in North Korea, where the government controls food distribution and will not allow humanitarian agencies to moniter or evaluate relief efforts within the state. The government does not want citizens whom it considers disloyal to receive aid, and therefore it will not allow NGO’s to assess who is most in need. For this reason, the United States is no longer providing food aid to North Korea until the regime complies with the same distribution and monitering standards used elsewhere in the world. Providing food aid through the World Food Programme was a form of diplomacy between the U.S. and North Korea, but it seems that the world’s superpower has abandoned that diplomacy in an effort to uphold humanitarian principles. The corruption of the North Korean government made it impossible for relief agencies to effectively follow these principles within the state. According to realists, the government’s power is the main determinant of whether or not humanitarian aid efforts within that state will be successful. These examples of the problems relief agencies have in dealing with corrupt or unstable governments seem to provide evidence for that perspective.

The effects of the International System

b2bombers — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 21:54:15 +0000

Both the WHO and the Red Cross provide humanitarian services to a multitude of countries throughout the world: the WHO has 193 member states, and the Red Cross has a permanent presence in 60 different countries and conducts operations in 80. The dynamic of the international system therefore affects the missions and operations of both organizations.

The liberal perspective of the internation system is the most relevent when considering the purpose and effectiveness of these organizations. It is the only perspective which recognizes IGO’s, such as the United Nations and its medical branch, the WHO, and NGO’s, such as the Red Cross, as legitimate actors in the international system. Liberal theory posits that the various states in the international system are interdependent and learn through mutual interaction. This is one of fundamental beliefs of the WHO, which focuses on “providing leadership on matters critical to health and engaging in partnerships where joint action is needed”. Recent events, such as the devastating tsunami which hit many parts of Asia and east Africa in 2004, have certainly proven that humanitarian efforts, such as those carried out by the Red Cross, are more effective and immediately responsive when multiple states are cooperating on the relief program.

Liberals also focus on economic and social interests and well as security concerns in the international system. Since both the WHO and Red Cross focus on alleviating poverty and providing for basic human needs throughout the world, this perspective accurately describes their priorities. The Red Cross in particular is dedicated to “ensuring humanitarian protection and assistance for victims of war and armed violence”, and therefore has a good understanding of the nature of war and suffering in the world. It seems reasonable to assume that this would lead to a more realist perspective of an anarchic international system, such as the position that neoliberal institutionalists hold towards the international dynamic. However, the Red Cross does not stress the importance of the international system nearly as much as realists do, and is not as concerned with issues of polarity. Rather, the organization reflects a more liberal view that “experience shows that the roots of most present-day armed conflicts lie in a combination of factors at the local or national level”. The efforts of the Red Cross and WHO also reflect in some ways a radical view of a highly stratified international system, since their humanitarian work is focused by necessity in developing countries which experience more turmoil due to a lack of natural resources and economic strength.

…In brief, the liberal view emphasizes the concept of international society rather than a a rigid international system and thus responsibilty between states for the welfare of each other. The WHO, WFP and Red Cross all exist as means through which states can assist each other, should they choose to do so indirectly. Direct assistance is often employed as well: such as the US military directed assistance in a tsunami ravaged Southeast Asia or Australian peacekeeping troops in East Timor. However the existence and success of NGO”s and IGO’s, especially these humanitarian agencies, validates the liberal view of international society: sometimes countries are motivated by more than just their own security interests. These humanitarian agencies help propogate this liberal view too: bringing people together to help others, regardless of state affiliation.

NGO’s in Kenya–update

b2bombers — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 05:43:10 +0000

…Well, the references to Red Cross involvement in American news only seem to be a small, scattered amount of field reports/statistics. Some others have been concerning. In Naivasha, for example, there was a massacre which took the Red Cross 3 days to respond to, according to a Kenyan citizen. While they were immediate responders to other isolated incidents in the country. Odhiambo T. Oketch claims that the Kenya Red Cross itself it a partisan agency. (see blog at http://www.africanpath.com/p_blogEntry.cfm?blogEntryID=3435)

The Kenyan government might limit NGO’s, but it’s surprising that something like this would happen on the Red Cross’ watch. While the exact reason for this delay may be unknown, there is more evidence of international aid in the Kenyan crisis. The World Food Programme (a humanitarian wing of the UN) self reports that is has distributed 1,772 mt (metric tons?) of food to Kenyan refugees in the Rift Valley, Western Kenya, and slums around Nairobi and Kisumu. (see statistics at http://mobile.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/WFP/41a8f51b350f7aecd449e2349585bda9.htm) I think we will add the WFP to our list of international aid organizations to watch. Both the WFP and the WHO are branches of the UN, so we feel like following the future actions of both will give us a more accurate idea of how the UN responds to crises. It looks as if the situation in Kenya could even get worse, as CNN recently stated: “The quickly approaching rainy season could also add to a brewing humanitarian crisis if farmers — sidetracked by the violence — can’t get their crops in before the rains come.” The UN has sent a large amount of food aid to Kenyan citizens, and Kofi Annan has intervened to help talks during the crisis. The nongovernment aspects of this crisis are indeed important, but it will take time to understand what lasting effects they have.

NGO aid in Kenya–or the lack thereof

b2bombers — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 05:27:09 +0000

The current conflict in Kenya has provided a few insights for our understanding of NGO’s and how they operate. Personally, I always assume that when conflict occurs, the Red Cross, the World Health Organization, or some other organization will have an immediate response to the crisis. This stirring quote made me realize that NGO’s are not always the efficient machines we imagine them to be: “Non-governmental organizations had been slow in providing aid, so we helped one of his neighbors set up an aid distribution point for those displaced from the Kibera slum.” (An American in Nairobi article) This quote was reveals that NGO’s, like any other system in the world, sometimes are slow in their reactions. While the responsibility for maintaining order ultimately rests on the Kenyan state, NGO’s can play an important part in stabilizing the country. While select gangs may be looting and pillaging the slums of Kenya, it seems many other Kenyan people are taking initiative to help provide food and shelter for each other. This movement for peace and stability in Kenya could only be strengthened by increased support from the Red Cross or WHO. I am surprised the the WHO has not intervened in a more visible way, and would like to further investigate the reasons for this. As for the Red Cross, they seem to be slow in reacting, and it will take much more research to determine why. In reading about the situation in Kenya the past few days, I have only come to an elementary understanding of the all the factors in the violence. I will post again soon with my conclusions about the reasons why the WHO, Red Cross, or any other organization have not been able to respond more quickly and visibly. For now, I have come to the understanding that NGO aid, as well as aid from fellow citizens, play an important role in stabilizing the individuals. It is this stability, in turn, that can determine the direction of a state. I hope that the citizens of Kenya will be even more strongly aided in their quest for peace, so that political discussions will again become a possibility.

><>K

If you are interested in a short background piece on the Kenyan crisis, click here: http://www.urbana.org/_articles.cfm?i=631598:3375&RecordId=1166

If you would like a firsthand account of an American student overseas there, click here: (this article contains the quote from the above blog)

http://www.urbana.org/_articles.cfm?RecordId=1164

Saving the World?

b2bombers — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 03:18:33 +0000

For our semester-long blog project, we have chosen to focus on the work of two international relief organizations, the Red Cross and the World Health Organization. We think that it will be interesting to contrast the efforts of these two groups because they have similar missions; however, the WHO is coordinated by the United Nations, while the Red Cross is an unaffiliated NGO. We plan to research and analyze the effectiveness of their humanitarian efforts, and, more relevantly to this class, how they affect international relations.

Confessions of a teenage gas guzzler

b2bombers — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 04:20:23 +0000

International relations is closely tied to international trade and the world economy. We as Americans, when purchasing specific products, affect the economies of other countries by creating a demand for natural resources and/or cheap labor. For example, Kristy loves scenic driving (and Catie loves accompanying, in the passenger seat). The pleasure we take in consuming oil while driving contributes to America’s dependence on foreign oil suppliers, affecting in a small way the United States’ relationship with several Middle Eastern countries. Oil is one of the largest contributing factors to tensions between the US and the Middle East, and by guzzling oil we have affected this situation in a small way.

As American teenagers, we contribute to the norms and standards of pop culture and the media. By condoning general trends in clothing and entertainment, we help to propogate societal norms for our generation. These norms are in turn transmitted through the media to other countries, sometimes changing aspects of their culture in controversial ways. For example, there is now at least ten international versions of American Idol. By paying for cable, going to the movies, buying CDs, and watching television shows supported by expensive advertising, Kristy and I have contributed to this globalization of American values. Many nations have become concerned, and even hostile, to this American influence, seeing it as an attack on their own national identities. This ranges from the French establishing the Academie Francaise to protect their national language from American “intrusions”, to radical Islamic terrorists attcking the United States because they so strongly disagree with our values. These are just a few examples of the ways that, on a small scale, we contribute to the big picture of international relations.

-Kristy and Catie