Matt and Russ’ Weblog

To me, international relations is a means of achieving a peaceful and cooperative world.  In studying IR, I found myself more attracted to the liberal view of thinking, believing that the more we open ourselves up to other states and the more globalized a societies become, the possibility of war and other dangers become less likely. Agreements such as NAFTA and NATO, and institutions such as the EU increase reliance and cooperation between states and therefore they almost always settle disputes diplomatically rather than militarily, which I believe most people would prefer.  I’m not denying the realist stance in that we need power and security, because every state wants to be safe and wealthy. But when those two goals are achieved, they can be used to promote good in other areas of the world. I believe that if the United States used more of its vast resources to help alleviate poverty and show its good will around the world, people would be more receptive to the US and not as likely to turn to radical ideology and terrorism against the West. Just look at the difference between how Bush was received in Africa versus how people view him in the Middle East (or other Western states for that matter). He was treated like a hero in Africa because he has dedicated large amounts of aid to those developing states, whereas in the Middle East, his war in Iraq has led to instability in the region and and an increase in terrorist activities.  So one of the goals may be to increase power and security, but one of the best ways to do that is to build good relations with other states and, for the US, promote a positive image of itself around the globe by leading the way in the fight against global dangers such as poverty, disease, and human rights.  This may sound idealistic, but without ideals, we don’t have anything to strive for.

The three international financial institutions that China and Russia are involved in are the IMF, World Bank, and the WTO.

In the 1990s, the IMF helped stabilize the world economies after markets collapsed in South America, Russia, and China. Some condemned this because of it’s interventionist approach, but others regarded it as a noble pursuit. For example, in Russia the IMF has played a strong role in transitioning a former communist economy to one that is a free market economy. The IMF did this for Russia in order to guarantee exchange-rate stability.

The world bank’s original purpose is to loan funds for economic development projects. But over the years, the World Bank has shifted its funding to infrastructure projects, agribusiness ventures, and certain global health initiatives. In regards to global health concerns, China and Russia have certain areas that have actue problems of TB. The World Bank is involved with both of these countries by giving aid to help fight TB incidences. In Russia, TB has become difficult to take care of because TB has spread so rapidly there. This is largely due to the prison incarceration system that Russia has, it creates perfect breeding arounds for TB bacteria. Nevertheless, some argue that the World Bank should be spending more money to fight TB in Africa rather than in Russia or China. ”The World Bank is spending far less on proven methods to combat tuberculosis in Africa, where almost 600,000 people die annually of the disease, than in India, China and Russia” according to a report released Tuesday by Results International, a nonprofit advocacy group.

The WTO is an international financial organization aimed to supervise and liberalize international trade. The WTO organization deals with the rules of trade and is responsible for negotiating and implementing trade agreements. China currently plays a strong role in influencing a lot of how the WTO conducts it trade. For instance, last year, China had the influence to stall global trade by asking the United States and Europe to lower their barriers to farm imports in return for greater export access to india, brazil and other developing countries.  As of now, Russia does not have a membership with the WTO. 

These three international financial institutions play a large role in the expansion of economic liberalism.

Earlier this week NATO passed a resolution that will create a ballistic missile shield in Europe. The missile shield will work through a system of radars and interceptor missiles. This will give certain states the ability to detect fired missiles and shoot them down before any damage is caused.  Although many states in NATO agree on the implementation of this system, Russia has presented strong opposition to the idea. There two ways to analysis the morality of this event; rules-based and ends-based. A rules-based analysis focuses on the original intentions of certain actions. In this case, NATO is creating the ballistic missile shield the moral intentions of saving lives. In Ethics in International Relations, Amstuz argues nuclear deterrence from a rules-based analysis is morally questionable because it creates safety through the use of intimidation. The NATO defense shield is quite different nuclear deterrence. As oppose to using intimidation, the NATO European defense shield does not take a “threatening” approach to create the security. The use of radars and intercept-missiles are not as morally questionable as the use of nuclear weapons for protection. In this aspect, from a rules-based analysis, the creation of the European defense shield is a moral decision.

Another way to analysis the NATO defense shield, is through a ends-based form of analysis. Differently from rules-based, ends-based analysis sees the morality of a situation in terms of consequences and results. From a ends-based perspective, the creation of the NATO defense shield could be both moral and immoral. The shield would be a moral decision if it actually worked to instill safety from missile attacks. This means several things; that the radar system and intercept missiles will be effective, that countries will refrain from attacking one another, and if it doesn’t cause future hostilities between countries. The problem with ends-based form of analysis is that there is no way to accurately predict if the defense shield will actually accomplish all these objectives. The potential for unintended consequences of the defense shield could lead it to be immoral decision.  For example, in objection to the defense shield, Vladimir Putin argued that “setting up the system will lead to a new arms race.” Along with this, the New York Times wrote that Putin even hinted that he would aim missiles towards the system in retaliation.  If the creation of the missile shield leads to more violence than peace, then the NATO defense shield would be an immoral decision. From an ends-based perspective, if the unintended consequences cause more hostilities than intended good,  this incident will be considered immoral. 

Personally, we believe that the creation the NATO Ballistic missile shield is a positive development in international relations. With the rise of Iran’s nuclear program and with the potentially growing hostilities between some Western nations and Russia, it is a safe precaution to take. In regards to the morality of the situation, we do not dismiss that the NATO Missile Shield could yield potentially negative outcomes. Although the intentions may be good, there are some potentially dangerous consequences that should not be ignored by the states of NATO. We believe that, in order to ensure the effectiveness of this resolution as well as preserve the morality of the decision, countries should be proactive in diplomatically mending the unrest presented by Russia. NATO will need to make the first step in making Russia feel as less threaten as they can, so that Russia doesn’t end up starting a new arms race and/or face missiles towards the shield.  

Recently there has been a violent uprising in Tibet against China. The Tibetans are displaying, through violent means, their built up resentment against the Chinese for occupying their territory.  China has responded with more violence and imposing a strict curfew for Tibetan citizens. 

The moral component of this event comes in two forms: were Tibetans morally justified in using a violent (rather than civil) protest?  and is China justified in its violent response against the protesters?

After years of non-violent protests, Tibetans have seen no development towards gaining their independence. With seemingly no other options, this was the only way left to express their immense dissatisfaction. Therefore Tibetan protesters ended up killing some Chinese citizens and destroying Chinese owned shops. They were not morally right because innocent Chinese were the victims of the protests and furthermore, they did not produce results towards independence, but rather a more forceful reaction from China. In this sense the ends did not justify their immoral means.

China’s response has been one of more violence. Police and soldiers have clashed with the protestors leaving many dead and injured. But this crackdown has also ended the violence and stabilized the region. Many international human rights groups and even some states are condeming China for its harsh reaction. It is difficult to get specific details because of the Chinese government’s secrecy and the press’ lack of freedom. But from an ends-based perspective of the government, the reaction was justified because it ended the protests. But others argue that it was immoral because of the means used. China’s reaction was too harsh and heavy-handed on the Tibetans.

We have witnessed a remarkable growth in China and Russia’s power over the past decade and in order to understand how it developed, we must first examine the sources of that power.  Mingst organizes power sources into three categories: natural sources, tangible sources, and intangible sources.

 Both Russia and China have an incredible amount of natural power by way of geographic size, population, and natural resources. It is very well known that China is the most populated country in the world with 1.3 billion people and is also the fourth largest country by area (behind Russia, Canada, and the United States). It also leads the world in hydropower and has vast resources of valuable minerals, such as iron ore. Russia similarly possesses a large land mass (the largest in the world, actually) and vast quantities of natural resources, particularly natural gas and oil, which it uses to wield its power over the rest of Europe. The Russian-American Chamber of Commerce states that Russia has the world’s largest reserves of natural gas and oil and the second largest reserves of coal, however many of these reserves lie in regions that are very difficult to access, such as the Arctic and Eastern Siberia.  But with an increasingly unstable Middle East, states, especially in Europe, may be forced to turn to Russia for their energy needs (which many countries see as picking the lesser of two evils). 

Despite the strengths, Russia still has a weakness in its natural sources of power: its demographic crisis. The BBC reports that Russia’s population will be nearly cut in half by 2050, from 176 million today to about 80 million, and some say that is an optimistic outlook. Experts proclaim that Russia is currently suffering a health crisis and the officials are doing little about it.  While 80 million is still a large population, the overall trend of failing health and declining population is not a good sign. As long as Russia can maintain control of its energy resources, though, the population should not cause a major decline in Russia’s international power.

China’s weakness resides in the category of tangible power, and more specifically its industrial development. Most of China’s industrial development and wealth is located along the coast, while those further inland suffer from extreme poverty. The CIA World Fact Book outlines some of the industrial and economic problems as follows:

“Measured on a purchasing power parity (PPP) basis, China in 2007 stood as the second-largest economy in the world after the US, although in per capita terms the country is still lower middle-income… The Chinese government faces several economic development challenges: (a) to sustain adequate job growth for tens of millions of workers laid off from state-owned enterprises, migrants, and new entrants to the work force; (b) to reduce corruption and other economic crimes; and (c) to contain environmental damage and social strife related to the economy’s rapid transformation. Economic development has been more rapid in coastal provinces than in the interior, and approximately 200 million rural laborers have relocated to urban areas to find work. One demographic consequence of the “one child” policy is that China is now one of the most rapidly aging countries in the world. Deterioration in the environment – notably air pollution, soil erosion, and the steady fall of the water table, especially in the north – is another long-term problem. China continues to lose arable land because of erosion and economic development.”

This is not to say that China has a weak industry or economy, but just to say that it has several issues to take care of before it can surpass the United States and become the dominant economic and industrial power of the world.

As far as intagibles go, both countries are quite strong.  There is a perception from the outside that, despite the lack of democracy in each state, the people generally support their respective governments (key word is perception).  If other states think that the government is strongly supported from within, then that gives others little opportunity to undermine its authority, and therefore it must be respected. Also, both of these countries are under strong leadership that give the country a sense of security and a vision for the future. The strong leadership of President Putin and, earlier Deng Xiaoping of China,  provided the strength, security, and inspiration those countries needed to increase their power on the international stage.

In present day, there is a lot of “grey” area in describing the relationship that China, Russia and the United States have.  Neither allies nor enemies, the three states have a relationship that could only be described as unpredictable. From one perspective the three states rely on each other for resources, economic, commercial and reasons; from the other they have differing ideologies in regards to government and domestic issues. These contradictions have made their relationships both productive yet precarious. To better understand these complex relationships we will use the three major theories of the international system; the liberal, the realist, and the radical international system.

The first international system is that of the Liberals. The Liberal International system has three main tenets. It argues that the states are interdependent among actors, that an international society can be created, and that states hesitate on conflict in order to protect themselves for the future. China, Russia and the United States operate within this international system because of their interdependence on one another. Although the three states have not created an international society, the three still seek to foster positive relationships. One example of maintain positive relationships will become present in the upcoming Olympics held in Beijing. Although just a sporting event, the venue creates a safe medium of positive interaction among countries. The fact that the states can engage each other in sports, exemplifies a liberal idea that countries–at least on the individual level–are not constantly at conflict. Sports icons like Yao Ming and Dirk Nowitzki are examples of how potentially conflictual states try to maintain friendly relationships. This idea is similar that of “Ping Pong Diplomacy” used during the Nixon era; coexistence is possible even though there are vast differences.

The international system in Realists theory plays a larger role in international relations than that of Liberals. According to Realists, the international system is a structure in which states are the main actors and the main objective of each state is to gain security and ultimately power. Actors of the system create system polarity, which are subsections of states that exert power. In 2003, Dr. Christopher Marsh argued that China, Russia, and America had a “trilateral relationship” with one another. Realist theorists would describe this system as a multipolar system. Because neither country is in a state of war with one another, Realists would argue that there is a balance of power between the three actors. This is drastically different from the liberal view of peacetime; states aren’t acting peaceful for moral reasons they are maintaining a status quo. Each state acts in their best interest to increase its security and power. For example, currently in Russia, in his last speech as president Putin defied Washington by refusing to back down from threats to aim strategic missiles at the Czech Republic, Poland and Ukraine.  In this case, Russia is acting in its own best interest, regardless of the pressures from outside actors.

 Radical international system is based on stratification and the influences of capitalism. For the most part, stratification means the interaction between capitalist states and developing countries. In regards to China, Russia, and America, all three are more or less capitalist states. These capitalist qualities, according to Radical theory, are the reason that the three nations maintain relations with one another. Furthermore, Radicals would argue that capitalism itself directly affects the nature of state interaction. An example of this is how America’s subprime mortgage problem is affecting Chinese workers. An article in the Washington Post described that America’s problems with subprime mortgages has damaged many Chinese companies and have caused them to downsize companies. One would think that subprime mortgages and Chinese businesses are completely unrelated, but because of the subprime mortgage problem, consumers in America have drastically dropped spending. A lot of the declining spending are Chinese made products.  This example proves how economically-centric the relations are with these countries. Because of this drop in spending, China has responded by raising prices. A quote from the Washington Post best describes the economic relationship that states have with each other. “The extent to which rising production costs in China affect the U.S. economy hinges on negotiations between suppliers and buyers. Chinese factory managers describe combative negotiations with U.S. importers regarding prices — with each side seizing on every possible argument, including how long they have worked with each other, the size of their market and the quality of the work.” – Ariana Eunjung ChaWashington Post Foreign Service
Saturday, February 9, 2008;

As China and Russia continue to grow and become more influential on the world stage, the United States must determine how to view these nations, either as friends or foes.  That decision largely depends on whether one looks at the world through a realist or a liberal perspective.

 For the realists, the emergence of China and Russia can only be seen as a threat to America’s security and power.  These three nations are competing with each other for hegemony and dominance, and therefore relationships based on conflict and distrust will inevitably develop.  Points of contention have already emerged between these nations over Iran. The United States has been the greatest advocate of sanctioning Iran for pursuing nuclear proliferation. Russia and China, on the other hand, have supported Iran and even provided them with information and technology on nuclear proliferation.  The realists would view this as Russia and China attempting to threaten and undermine America’s power and security on the world stage. As a result, America cannot trust either nation and therefore can only help itself in securing its power and interests abroad. 

Another power struggle has developed between Russia and the United States with threats of a new arms race. The United States proposed about a year ago to place a missile defense station in Poland and a radar station in the Czech Republic, two nations that formerly fell under Russia’s sphere of influence. The purpose of these stations would be to protect Europe from “rogue” states, however Russian officials see it as America trying to impose its will on the rest of the world, and therefore they staunchly oppose the establishment of the stattions.  Russia has threatened that if they are built then it would lead to a new arms race between the two nations.  While most people dismiss this as empty threats, the underlying issue remains an important one. As NATO and Western influence expands into Central and Eastern Europe, thus including former Soviet satellite states, how will Russia react? This incident of the defense stations clearly shows that Russia will not behave passively, but will actively engage the issue.  According to realism, this confrontation will lead to a struggle for power and influence over this region of Europe. Russia will not take this lightly and as the United States seeks to increase its influence in Eastern and Central Europe, Russia will engage in a power struggle as it attempts to reclaim some of its lost influence.

 All of this, though, seems unlikely to liberals, who think that continuous interaction between America and the two nations will prevent war and power struggles between the nations. War, or even the threat of war, becomes very unlikely. The three nations have seats on the UN Security Council, which provides a platform for them to resolve their issues in a diplomatic fashion. Also, China is one of America’s largest trading partners and Russia is a member of the Group of Eight, so since America has strong economic relations with these nations, war would hurt both countries more than it would help.  There is much more to gain from these nations in the economic and trading sector than there would be in attempting to out-militarize them. The best way to secure America’s interests, according to the liberals, would be to increase economic activity between the nations and ensure that continous diplomatic relations exist.

There is an interesting article from foreignaffairs.org written from the liberal perspective about how the relationship between China and the West will develop in the future. John Ikenberry’s basic argument is that if the United States decides to take on China alone, China will inevitably surpass the United States as the strongest power in the world. However, if America strengthens its alliances and secures a Western-oriented international stage for the future, then there is no way that China will be able to overtake the collective efforts of the entire Western world. Therefore it must conform and fit into the Western system. So Ickenberry wants to achieve the ends of a realist, that is security and power, by using the means of a liberal, that the United States must develop strong and long-term relationships with its Western allies and create a diplomatic and Westernized international stage.

It is important to focus on how the United States deals with China and Russia in the future. As of right now, it appears a more liberal road is being followed, as they work and compromise together on the UN Security Council and economic relations continue to be strong. Relations remain peaceful for now, but it will be interesting to see how America reacts as Russia and China become stronger and they see the power shifting.

We will be writing about the emergence of China and Russia on the world stage and their relationship with the West. China is quickly becoming one of the most powerful nations in the world, and Russia is re-emerging as a power with its vast energy resources.  Both of these countries have recent history of authoritarian communism and it is very important that we track what type of relationship develops between them and the West. We will also examine if they are domestically, willing to grant more freedoms to their people, or revert back to an authoritarian style of rule.

As we go further into the 21st century, it is apparent that even insignificant individuals from across the globe can affect another individual on the completely opposite end. Globalization has made most facets of life interconnected; the food we eat, the products we buy, the information we receive from the internet, all of them have a global link. We will discuss two ways that we personally affect international relations; these are economically and socially.

My partner and I both shop at Wal-Mart quite frequently because we enjoy the low priced goods that they provide. As consumers we don’t care where products were made or who made them, we just buy. In truth, Wal-Mart produces most of it’s goods in foreign factories in areas such as Bangladesh, China, and Mexico. Because of the demand of consumers like us, Wal-Mart is able to expand and grow internationally through the establishment of more factories. With this expansion this creates jobs for other people in foreign nations. Furthermore, this has created much debate in America politics to whether companies like Wal-Mart are good for America. In regards to international relations, the question is whether we should continue to foster and support the international economy or whether we should become more protective of domestic jobs.

A more direct way that we affect international relations is through an organization called KIVA. KIVA is an organization that grants micro loans to entrepreneurs in undeveloped countries from people of developed countries. I first heard of this program from Dr. Mayes of the Political Science department. The way the program works is that it receives donations from online users and invests in entrepreneurs of developing companies. The small amount of money that they recieve allows them to jump start their business and create revenue. The organization operations under an important theme; help people help themselves. It isn’t an ordinary charity foundation because those entrepreneurs work their way out of their own trouble, rather than just being given resources. I am currently loaning money to Joyce Kiyimba’s group. The woman is a widow with nine children who has a poultry farm and a public pay phone. She intends to use the extra business profits to buy a plot of land and build a house.

The last way that we thought we affected international relations was socially. This is more of a broad idea in that it encompasses a variety of areas. The music we listen to, the movies we watch, and the athletes we idolize, are all examples of how we can affect international relations socially. For instance, in the same way that teenagers in China wear jeans and tee-shirts because they watch MTV we too change our habits cause we see them. My partner and I don’t single handedly start international trends and fads, but each music band or item of clothing that we wear has a small effect in a whole spectrum of change.

 I too have had my share of “momentous” events in my life–the first time I played a high school football game, my first party with girls, the first time I moved away from home. But if i were to pick one event that drastically changed my life, it would be when I moved from Guanzhou, China to Fairfax, Virginia.

I grew up the son of an American diplomat so I was used to moving around from country to country. But in the move to Fairfax, Virginia, it was must more sudden than anything that I had previously experienced. A couple months after 911 there were still paranoia amongst foreign relations. In result of this, my family was forcible asked to leave China and come back “home.” I remember hearing that I had to leave all my friends and everything that I had known.  America for me wasn’t my home at all. The originial plan was to stay in Guangzhou till I finished high school, but because of my fathers orders we had to gather all our stuff and ship out. In one week, we packed up three years of our lives and flew to America. Personally, it was a monumental experience because in one week my life literally switched from one side of the globe to another.