IR means that not only do I affect people in other countries, and at other ends of the world, but that they also affect me.  Thus, only by understanding this complex web of connections and policies can I make any positive difference in our world. 

For our topic of the role that the United Nations takes in countries with internal warring nations, this same system applies of under what circumstances the UN can achieve peace and compromise.  There must first be an innate wish by the people of each warring nation in desiring change as well as external forces and people from foreign countries who are willing to help those nations.  Only with both of elements can any change occur and any positive achievements be made.

While the Kuper and especially the Singer articles bring up the moral issue of helping others through donation and supporting foreign markets.  While some of their examples may be a little outrageous, such as putting the well-being of clothing above of the life of a child, they also each make very valid points regarding how everything is connected and what each of us can do for the impoverished people of the world.

Above all else, International Relations means to me that there are many people around the world in need, and through the different types of international relations, that there are many ways that I can help these people, whether on issues of hunger, human rights, the environment, health, and many more.

As is common to many organizations, the United Nations operates based on rules and regulations outlined in its charter.  And, in order to become a member of the United Nations, each country that joins must sign and agree to these regulations and procedures.  The same is true of its peacekeeping operations.  In order to begin a new peacekeeping operation, there must be the potential for sustainable peace in a currently warring country.

While each peacekeeping operation has the ultimate goal to “alleviate human suffering and to create conditions and build institutions for self-sustaining peace,” they do not however take any kind of ends-based action.  Instead, each peacekeeping action taken by UN is based on a set of conditions and rules which must be met.  These include “a genuine desire on the part of the warring parties to solve their differences peacefully, a clear mandate, strong political support by the international community, and the provision of the resources necessary to achieve the operation’s objectives.”  At no point are questions raised regarding the probable outcome of the mission, but instead, these are replaced by the hope that through the operation sustainable peace can be achieved.

 While the UN’s goal is definitely a moral one, its approach may not be however.  Despite all the good that the UN tries to create, they often fail in recognizing and measuring the consequences of their actions.  As they are attempting to work with several different parties at one time to bring peace between them, each party also has its own agenda and aspirations.  It is when these turn from achieving and keeping peace that trouble ensues and military force becomes a primary tool for the UN.  These uncontrollable and unforeseen consequences are where the peacekeeping forces of the UN lack in ends-based morality.  When this does occur, they must often utilize their military resources while retaining their rule of minimizing the suffering of non-combatants.  This then also leads the peacekeepers to undertake great personal risks.  Additionally, under certain circumstances and despite immense efforts by peacekeepers, peace simply cannot be achieved.  Such was the case in Rwanda in 1994 and in Somalia and Bosnia between 1992 and 1995.

While many different areas of the United Nations work with issues of morality and ethics on the international level, their peacekeeping forces and operations rely immensely on these.  As was in the documentary Peacekeepers, the peacekeeping operations of the United Nations are enacted as attempts to “help countries torn by conflict create conditions for sustainable peace.”

As the United Nations is currently comprised of 192 member states, naturally issues between differing cultures would arise regarding the morals and ethics which the UN’s peacekeeping operations are based upon.   These are outlined in the Charter of the UN and each potential peacekeeping operation must adhere to both these moral bases as well as several other regulations.  As each member state designates the responsibility of maintaining international peace and security to the United Nations Security Council upon signing the Charter of the United Nations, these members then also give the UN power to take “collective action” in order to do so.  Thus, each member state also declares that its own moral and ethical standards comply with those of the UN through this charter.  However, in the event that there is doubt that UN involvement would be inappropriate on moral or ethical grounds in certain peacekeeping situations, the Security Council instead “authorizes regional and other international organizations to implement certain peacekeeping or peace enforcement functions.”  These include organizations, such as the European Union, NATO, and the African Union, as well as “coalitions of willing countries.” 

Source: http://www.un.org/issues/m-peace.htm

The state has a big impact on the peacekeeping efforts country, especially when it is an international organization trying to create peace in a country that has an intrastate conflict. Right now in Sudan, the region of Darfur is being subjected to attacks on civilians by the Janjaweed, a government back militia, under the pretense of quelling a rebellion by members of the SLM/A (Sudanese liberation movement/ army). In 2003 the SLM/A led a rebellion by attacking government targets because they believed that the, mostly Arab run government was implementing unfair policies against those non-Arab citizens. The government armed the Janjaweed to stop the rebellion, but instead the militia group has used their resources to burn villages and rape citizens, murdering thousands of innocents. The U.N. has repeatedly asked to be able to send in peacekeeping forces to start negotiations between the Sudanese government and the SLM/A, but the government refuses to allow the organization into the country. It has, however allowed a limited amount of peacekeeping troops from the A.U. into the country. The genocide in Darfur is still going on today, and Sudan’s sovereignty as a state allows it to refuse the help of other countries and organizations if it so desires. This idea of a sovereign state has had a negative impact on the peace negotiations in Darfur.

Sources: see the works sited page of Lauren Slipher’s IR paper

Generally, and on principle, international peacekeeping efforts fall under two main theories: liberalism and constructivism.  Under the United Nations, peacekeeping efforts are used as an attempt to create a stable environment where warring factions are able to negotiate.  In order to achieve this however, it is imperative and essential that both parties are willing to negotiate with one another. 

These efforts follow the ideology of liberalism that while the world is in a state of anarchy, international organizations and the interdependence of states can create a peaceful environment.  On an individual level, while both external and civil war may bring out the baser tendencies of people, the peacekeeping efforts work to bring out the positive attributes in warring people, therefore allowing them to establish a solution that satisfies both parties. 

From a constructivist’s view, peacekeeping efforts are a way to reach a middle ground between warring factions whose cultures or identities are in conflict with one another.  By relating the importance of cooperation and peace to people of different backgrounds and cultures, the United Nations seeks to create an environment where different people can work together despite their differences or antagonistic histories towards each other.           

However, in the context of a realist’s “self help” world, countries at war will often manipulate the United Nations peacekeeping efforts by stealing supplies and aid sent to refugees and exploiting structures, such as roads, built by peacekeeping forces.

Source: http://www.cato.org/pubs/fpbriefs/fpb-034.html

There are many ways in which we affect the international relations between America and the rest of the world. While they include natural rights given to all American citizens, such as our ability to vote, they also encompass other aspects of American life that are limited to specific individuals such our behavior in other countries and the products we consume. Under our democratic government, we as citizens elect those who dictate the nature of our relations with other countries. As each US citizen over the age of 18 is given the right to vote, the majority of the population can affect foreign relations by electing our nation’s leaders. These leaders that are elected and the foreign policy they invoke and practice then plays a major role in the government relations between countries, trade agreements, opinions that people of other countries have on America and subsequently the ways in which Americans are viewed and treated internationally. As is a common practice among affluent American citizens, travel to other countries often also plays a key role. As each citizen is a representative of America, the behavior of those individuals on the people they encounter in foreign countries always leaves an impression. While it is a minority of American people who are able to travel and impact others, it is then solely left to the few individuals who can, to leave positive foreign impressions.

Another current and major way in which Americans affect international relations everyday are through the products that we consume. Unlike past periods of American history, the majority of the products that we buy are imported from other countries. Despite appearing inherently American, even American brands, such as Nike, have outsourced their manufacturing plants to different countries with less strict labor laws as a way to save money. As some of these companies use child labor, while promoting good trade relations between the US and other countries, buying certain products could be promoting child labor and abuse.

Though I do not know if this will ultimately be the most defining moment of my life, I would have to say that my seventh grade Duke TIP award ceremony is the most defining moment of my life thus far. Like any other award ceremony, this program had a guest speaker, and it was this speaker who greatly affected my life. Unlike the many other speakers who I had heard before, he did not talk about the importance of doing well in school or being “smart” or attending a prestigious university. Instead he preached about the importance of being “good,” the value and importance of helping others, and that helping others is not only a gift to them but a privilege in itself. Though I cannot remember his name or anything else about him, I will never forget his final words “it is good to be smart, but it is better to be good.”

These few words truly led me to look upon my life and goals in a different light. Where I had previously been almost completely focused on just excelling in school, his words truly touched me. Though I had been involved in minimal service related activities before this, once hearing his speech I resolved to immerse myself in volunteer and service activities. Each of these experiences also helped to shape my life, leading me to subsequent experiences, such as being a Bonner Scholar here at Richmond, as well as demonstrating what the speaker meant about serving others to be important and a privilege. Though I still have no idea what major these four years at Richmond will finally lead me to, I do know that after graduation I intend to enter the Peace Corps so that I can serve and help those in the worst situations and with the direst need around the world.

peace keeping efforts in war zones

If I had to choose an event divided my life into two periods, then it would have to be the summer I studied abroad in Cambridge, England. The summer before my sophomore year of college I studied in Cambridge for a month through a program called Oxbridge. In this program I chose a major and a minor field of study, British history and Shakespeare, and wen to classes for them for about an hour and a half a day. The rest of the time I was free to roam the city with the other people in the program. This event was important because it was the first time in my life that I was really able to meet people outside the small social circle that my school provided. It was also the first time I traveled overseas alone and the longest I had been away from my parents. I had an amazing time while I was there and it prompted me to enroll in other programs that Oxbridge offered for the next two summers.

Welcome to WordPress.com. This is your first post. Edit or delete it and start blogging!