What IR means to us April 25, 2008

At the beginning of the year, we understood international relations from our perspective as individuals- how our actions affect international relations.  However, this semester has taught us that International relations include many different aspects.  We now understand how governing bodies and organizations affect global relations in addition to how we affect those relations personally.  

 International relationships are give and take.  This course has proved to us that every citizen of every country has a duty and a method through which to influence international affairs. We are grateful for the insight we received through this course because while we still believe everything we stated at the beginning of the semester, we have learned more. This course has taught both of us that International Relations means a duty to communication and a necessity to inform others of this imperative. Thanks for a great semester.

 

Keep it fierce!

           

 

The OAS and IFIs April 18, 2008

            International financial institutions, or IFIs, are financial

establishments founded and directed by more than one country.  These

institutions, whether created by multiple nations or simply two

countries, are typically owned by national governments and other

prominent international institutions.  Among the most well known are the

World Bank and the IMF.

        The Organization of American States has been known to serve as a

discussion ground for issues regarding the need for international

financial assistance.  A good example of intervention by an international

financial institutions is displayed in Resolution 822 of the Organization

of American States.  The OAS Permanent Council adopted the resolution on

September 4, 2008 in hopes to decrease Haiti’s immense budged deficit by

maintaining cooperation among the United States, Haiti and international

financial institutions.  In November of the same year Haiti was approved

for additional loans, which directly depended on the Haitian government’s

economic performance from then on.  The success of the funding initially

provided by the International Monetary fund and World Bank will continue

to serve as a judging factor for future funding by international

financial institutions, upholding the principal that the institutions

cannot simply give away money without imperative cause or some trajectory

of reassurance.

            Because the OAS is an Intergovernmental Organization, it has to maintain a delicate relationship with IFI’s so as not alienate these investors. Most times, the OAS administration gets the brunt of the blame from these IFI’s (most frequently the World Bank) when investments go wrong in one of the member states. However the flip side of the power and influence of the IFI’s is that by holding the OAS responsible, they effectively invest a new authority in the OAS to pressure member states into reforms along democratic or financial lines. Therefore, the relationship between the OAS and most IFI’s is one of collective interest and mutual dependence.

Rules-based thinking April 6, 2008

In our opinion, the OAS almost exclusively uses the rules-based or deontological perspective in its moral decision making.  The OAS places a strong emphasis on the duties and obligations of its member states, and thus reiterates the “agent-centered” focus of deontological thinking.  All OAS member states have a duty to follow the principles set forth in the founding charter, such as collective security and promotion of democracy.  When and if a member state’s internal policies violate any of the founding principles, the OAS sees it fit to intervene. 

 

For example, this April the OAS saw the need to condemn Cuba for a number of violations.  Although the OAS received considerable criticism from Cuba’s allies, Venezuela and Nicaragua, the organization felt the need to make public the multiple infractions made by Cuba.  Their violations include, but are not limited to, to suppression of “political rights and freedom of expression,” lack of “free elections and an independent judiciary,” and the creation of “a permanent panorama of breached basic rights for the Cuban citizenry.”  These infractions are yet another notch on the belt for Cuba, who is still a member of the OAS, but has not been permitted to actively participate in its issues since 1962.  Even though it is not an active member, however, officials still reason that the member state is still obligated to respect human rights treaties. 

 

We feel that the recent action with Cuba illustrates the OAS’s commitment to holding its members accountable to rules-based standard of morality.  It shows that even though long term membership maybe more beneficial, immediate moral accountability is more important to the OAS. 

Ethics and Morality in the OAS March 28, 2008

In his book, International Ethics, Mark Amstutz states that the quest for territorial security, economic wellbeing, and preservation of stable and humane global order is rooted in moral values.  Since it is difficult, however, for those moral norms to conduct foreign affairs easily, one can appreciate the Organization of American States for serving as a forum to discuss international events in moral terms.  The OAS prides itself that it is a moral and just organization that strives to maintain the collective values at the interest of the citizens of all the American continents.  In its founding charter, the OAS lists regional (referring to all three continents) stability, peace, democracy, and cooperation as its primary goals. As forum for discussion, the OAS is always evolving in its use of ethical reasoning tactics such as assessing rules, practices, and institutions in order to attain the most common good.

That said; the OAS has large room for ethical improvement considering its recent role in the conflict between the Colombian government and FARC.  In early March, Colombia raided parts of Ecuador in order to eliminate threatening leaders of the Latin American terrorist organization.  Soon after the successful attack, the OAS issued a statement condemning Colombia’s violation of Ecuadorian sovereignty and defending Ecuador’s autonomy.  Many critics have cited this as yet another example of member states’ willingness to place formal notions of sovereignty above the need to address fundamental security concerns. The OAS does clearly state in its charter that their promotion of democracy will be limited “with due respect to nonintervention.” However, it is the opinion of these two “blogettes” that the OAS should think twice about its widespread promotion of sovereignty in order to address issues that have a more realistic affect on the collective stability that they so ardently seek to achieve.  Yes Colombia should have used the forum provided by the OAS to address the situation, but the OAS should have issued a response that more clearly states their position against FARC and terrorist cells in general.  We appreciate the OAS and believe in its potential, but we feel that they need to be less ambiguous in order to convince the global community. 

 

Till next time…

The Significance of the State in the OAS February 28, 2008

The role of the state is central to the foundations of the Organization of American States. Aside from its title, the OAS is shaped by three specific aspects of the state. First, all members of the OAS are by definition, states. They all meet the four necessary conditions of a definite geographical boundary, a stable population, a supported government, and diplomatically recognized. It is indicative of the OAS’s prominent position that the only member state to not fit all of these characteristics, Cuba, has been an “excluded member” since 1962. In its mission statement, the OAS clearly establishes its role to establish and promote democracy and since Cuba’s government does not acknowledge the recognition of its citizens, it violates this tenet.

The second way the role of the state applies to the OAS is through the influence of the nation-state, which promotes the idea of a shared nationhood. Aside from the United States, it is safe to say that due to the colonization of Latin America, the majority of OAS states posses a false sense of nationalism. With the exception of soccer, most Latin Americans indentify with their larger continent as opposed to their country because in basically, their country members share the same identity. Although there is a large influence of the native races, such as Incas and Mayas, the main shared heritage is Spanish. The OAS capitalizes on this distinctiveness because it unites the different citizens of Latin America to strengthen and promote their collective identity.

Third and most importantly, the OAS could not exist if each member state did not have power potential. The OAS is founded on the belief that all member states have something to bring to the table, and thus, have some source of power. Whether it be the geographical location of Mexico, the developing industry of Brazil, or the unbeatable national image of Venezuela; all OAS members have some source of power through which to distinguish themselves. By combining these three sources of natural, tangible, and intangible, the OAS pools together states that by themselves, would be powerless. For example, Bolivia and Guatemala are highly unlikely to ever wield international weight; but with the support of the OAS, their voice gets heard. Therefore, it is the power of states that make the collective OAS a significant player in world politics. 

The International System and the OAS February 15, 2008

The international system that most pertains to the Organization of

American States is that according to Liberals. Under this notion, the

international system is viewed from three perspectives.  The first sees

the system as a process rather than a structure, the second as an

international society, and the third as anarchic.  To reiterate, the OAS

strives “to achieve an order of peace and justice, to promote their

solidarity, to strengthen their collaboration, and to defend their

sovereignty, their territorial integrity, and their independence.”  The

Liberal system is a perfect template for these intentions.

        The OAS treats the system as a process through its multiple

Interactions and meetings, where various actors, all with different ideals,

voice their opinions.  For example, the OAS had a close and heated election

in 2005 for a new Secretary General.  Despite the contention, members eventually

unified under their newly elected leader, Chilean José Miguel Insulza.  Another

example of the inherent order and cooperation of the OAS was the defeat of a US

proposal “to monitor the progress of democracy in Latin America.”  Although we’re

sure you can guess a bit of the tension that ensued between a defeated US and

vindicated members, such as Venezuela; the OAS still managed to move forward with

the allotted changes.  This dedication to progress fits perfectly within the liberal view

of an evolving international society. 

        As an international society, the OAS has a consented list of rules

and institutions, while at the same time accounting for similar interests.

For example the OAS is dedicated to promoting democratic governments, fair

elections, human rights, and to combating, terrorism, the war on drugs, and

bureaucratic corruption.  A key feature of the liberal view is the sense of “we-ness” and

these initiatives provide a front for OAS members to unify behind.  Furthermore, these

goals and the sense of “we-ness” serve to mediate conflict between member states as it

reminds them that the society they work for is larger and more important than inter-

organization conflicts. 

        The final liberal view of anarchy, pertaining to the ideas of the

neoliberal institutionalists, says that all actors act according to their

own self-interests.  This self-interest, however, is seen as a positive

source for the interaction liberals seek in order to normalize state

behavior.  Although the OAS appears perfect on paper, we can all easily imagine the

difficulties that arise by having member states that openly violate some of the chartered

rules.  Venezuela’s elections can hardly be called fair, Argentina’s economy collapsed

due to a dictatorship, and Columbia is viewed by some as promoting the war on drugs. 

Despite these violations, states continue to belong, and other states continue to turn a

blind eye, because it is in everyone’s best interest.  No country wants to be the odd man

out and thus, the liberal view of anarchy will always solidify membership.

 

Liberals and the OAS February 7, 2008

In terms of international theory, we believe that the realist school pertains most to our focus on the Organization of American States (OAS).  Originally founded as the Pan American Union, the OAS was modified in April of 1948 and adopted the world’s first treatise of human rights, the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man.  According to their charter, the OAS aims to “to achieve an order of peace and justice, to promote their solidarity, to strengthen their collaboration, and to defend their sovereignty, their territorial integrity, and their independence.”  We feel that the liberal emphasis on intergovernmental cooperation and general concern for human rights, are at the center of the OAS’s mission. One of the main tenets of the liberal level of analysis is the “connectivity” and dependency of all the world’s nations.  Dedicated to achieving political and individual security, liberals would most likely laud the OAS for its purposes and beliefs.  Also, the liberal view of an international “society” of states perfectly applies to the OAS as it is an assembly of states.  Essentially, the OAS represents the liberal faith in the ability of countries to help each other. As we’ve learned in class, the optimistic liberals do not think of international relations as a “one shot game.”  It is safe to say that intergovernmental organizations, such as the OAS, serve as mediators of potentially chaotic or detrimental situations.  Take for example a current conflict between OAS member states Colombia and Ecuador.  Claiming that the aerial irrigation methods of their neighbor are destroying their own crops, Ecuador has formally summoned Colombia to the OAS.  Although the issue has yet to be resolved, the OAS “has mechanisms to settle disputes between member states.”  (BBC)  The ability and desire of the OAS to work for collective improvement of its member states are perfect reflections of liberal cooperation.   

        Although this video is in Spanish, we found it to be a useful example of an OAS debate.  In this particular clip, Condoleezza Rice first expresses the United State’s wish of a higher democratic influence in Venezuela.  She stresses that democracy should always be a major part of the OAS agenda.  She goes on to discuss the importance of human rights as a part of democracy, including the suggestion that Venezuela should exercise more freedom of press.  In a heated reply, the representative from Venezuela argues that the citizens of the United States receive more censored news than they think and that if she wants to discuss the issue of human rights, she should first consider the United State’s actions in Guantanamo, Cuba.  Finally, he concludes that the United States should respect its fellow OAS members in the same manner in which they wish to be treated, preferably sooner than later. 

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGqGp-7WUCQ “Ecuador-Colombia row taken to OAS.”  http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6248033.stm

Semester Focus January 28, 2008

For the semester long focus of our blog, we have chosen to focus on the Organization of American States (OAS).  We picked this topic because we are both interested in South and Central American culture and feel that much of the popular media overlooks or ignores important developments in these American countries.  Also, since Ale participated in Model OAS, she has a strong admiration for the Organization and its mission.  OAS is an ideal focus because it allows us to compare and contrast issues and their affects within different countries.  Most importantly, we feel that as a member, the United States government could contribute more to the Organization.  We look forward to learning more about OAS and its advancements! 

Affects on and of International Relations January 22, 2008

How we affect International Relations:

            - traveling around the world on our best behavior

- studying abroad (Ale and I are both considering Argentina and/or Spain and South Africa)

- the clothes we buy

- the news programs, TV shows, movies, and music we watch and listen to

- the food we eat, and more importantly that which we throw away

- consumer trends

- elections

- the cars our parents buy

- one day joining the Peace Corps

- studying in Ireland and Spain

            - global employment rates (outsourcing)

How International Relations affects us:

            - our economy, or lack there of

            - “terror level” and thus days off of high school for one of us

            - our taxes

            - our elections

            - the tone our Italian/French relatives use with us

            - consumer trends

            - concern for others

            - outsourcing

 

(veni vidi vici)

Life Changing Experience January 17, 2008

I feel that I can divide my life based upon my reaction to the Catholic Church’s sex abuse scandals of 2002.  I was born and raised Roman Catholic and spent 15 years at Catholic schools.  However, prior to events and publicity of 2002, I never questioned why I was Catholic let alone if I agreed with all the Church’s tenets.  The scandal forced me to question other aspects of the Church, such as their treatment of women and homosexuals.  Although press coverage of the abuses has since died down, I no longer consider myself a practicing Catholic.