Michael & Amy’s Weblog

We decided that IR means the way that the world can take so many different societies, cultures, and situations and organize them in a way that we can all coexist.  This class has taught us many dimensions of IR that we were not aware of before, such as MNCs.  It is so important to have organizations that force the haves to help the have-nots, and to create a world that is environmentally, culturally and economically responsible.  Everything that happens in the world effects everyone else and so it is very important to be aware of the relations between all the different players in world politics.  To me, IR is a peace-keeping effort, which is very important today. 

International financial instituations in the Post 9/11 era have have economically effected almost every third-world country throughout the world.  These private sector investment corporations have excercised its power and manipulative strategies even more in this War on Terror.  Bush, in the National Security Strategy gives the IMF and World Bank increasing power in the following aritcle. 

“The IMF already crudely imposes extreme hardship on the vast majority of people in the countries where it intervenes. Bush wants the IMF and World Bank to continue to enforce free market trade to these countries.  Chapter VI of that document is entitled “Ignite a New Era of Global Economic Growth through Free Markets and Free Trade.”  And the IMF, which has been especially brutal, needs to be more so, the document suggests: “If crises occur, the IMF’s response must reinforce each country’s responsibility for its own economic choices. A refocused IMF will strengthen market institutions and market discipline over financial decisions.” It extorts policy changes—like removing subsidies on such basic items as food and fuel—that virtually overnight slash people’s living standards, all in the name of “market discipline.” (www.commondreams.org)

“Structural Adjustment [demanded by the IMF] is best summed up in four words: earn more, spend less. While such advice might be valid if it were given to only a few countries at once, dozens of debtors are now attempting to earn more by exporting whatever they have at hand; particularly natural resources including minerals, tropical crops, timber, meat and fish. With so many jostling for a share of limited world markets, prices plummet, forcing governments to seek ever-higher levels of exports in a desperate attempt to keep their hard currency revenues stable. The “export-led growth” model on which the fund and the World Bank insist is a purely extractive one involving more the “mining” than the management—much less conservation—of resources.17

“Countries without the industries to produce for themselves are far underpaid for their resources and labor. A share of what is earned is intercepted and diverted by corrupt managers, the developing world must borrow to survive, and their debts grow ever bigger. ” (www.ied.info/books/cc/financialwarfare)

In summary, is it right to have these organizations with every government tie in the world to continue to force third world countries to open up free marketing?  Is it possible to believe that Bush is in every way making the U.S. an anarchical nation over the world along with other developed and industrialized countries like China, Great Britain, Switzerland, etc.?  It is very possible and from countless evidence it appears to be exactly what is occuring behind closed doors.

Our topic definitely deals with morality and ethics.  One of the morality components of our topic deals with the idea of revenge and taking sides in the international world.  After the United States was attack in 9/11, many civilians felt that it was the moral thing to do to get revenge from those who attacked the country.  Others believed that it was wrong to kill people as a punishment for killing your own people.  This was a moral decision that our country had to make.  Does two wrongs make a right?  Was revenge deserved?  Also, other countries had to decided whether it was in their national interest to align with the United States or not.  Was it moral to back up a country that was wrongfully attacked or was it unneccessarily putting your people in more danger than neccessary?

In the “Post 9/11″ era, the role of the state performs a crucial role in the heightened state of national security.  Many “in-state” organizations such as the Texas Regional Community Policing Institute in Austin, Texas and other organizations within individual states have tightened their security and patroling with in its own areas because studies have shown that by keeping close watch and cracking down on suspicious activities in rural and urban cities in the U.S., the State is helping to limit potential terrorism and not having federal agencies worry too much about what’s going on in “American” communities this way they can focus more on international threats creating a safer environment.

Michael&Amy

9/11 has had an immense impact on the international system.  A system is characterized as an assemblage of units.  A change in one unit causes a change in all the others.  When America was attacked in 2001 there was a tremendous change in the country, especially in homeland security and foreign policy.  This change forced many other countries to comply with the US’s change.  For example, and British person flying into the US from the UK would HAVE to plan ahead and comply with the new airline restrictions.  In turn, this is has had a domino effect.  Airline travel in many other countries is currently as strict (if not more strict) than post 9/11 US.  A liberal analyst would say that the UK and country’s other air travel restrictions were put in place because they learned a lesson not only from the misfortune brought upon the US but also their strict regulations after the incident.  This also makes clear the implicit notion of the shared interest of these countries to keep hijackers and terrorists off their airplanes.  The interdependence of air travel across states and borders has forced these international parties to influence and change policies in other countries. 

Our blog topic is mainly focused upon the focus of international policies that
deal with terrorism along with the guidelines that have been altered and/or created as a direct result of the events of 9/11/01. The U.S. has taken drastic measures but some would argue necessary measures to ensure our Nation’s security and to enforce the notion that if any terrorist organization, country, etc. ever threatens us and esp. attacks us again that We as a nation will respond in lethal matters. The question however is have We as a nation taken a turn from a  liberalist level or to a radical ways? Read the following:

 One year after U.S. tanks rolled through Iraq and more than two years after the United States bombed the Taliban out of power in Afghanistan, the administration has instituted what some experts describe as the most militarized foreign policy machine in modern history. The policy has involved not just resorting to military action, or the threat of action, but constructing an arc of new facilities in such places as Uzbekistan, Pakistan, Qatar and Djibouti that the Pentagon calls “lily pads.” They are seen not merely as a means of defending the host countries — the traditional Cold War role of such installations — but as jumping-off points for future “preventive wars” and military missions. In a major policy statement issued in September 2002 and titled the National Security Strategy, the president declared, “It is time to reaffirm the essential role of American military strength,” and he detailed two significant new uses of that might: pre-emptively attacking would-be enemies, as in Iraq, and preventing rivals from even considering matching U.S. strength. It was a new assertion of U.S. primacy, not through diplomacy or economics but through unquestioned military domination. This sharp turn in U.S. policy has ignited a passionate debate — well beyond the dispute over the wisdom of the war in Iraq — over the proper role of U.S. power

The administration has argued that the policy is needed to remove regimes that support terrorists and to confront the new threats of a terrorist enemy that operates globally, preys on weak governments and targets civilians. In a commencement address at West Point in 2002, the president declared: “In the world we have entered, the only path to safety is the path of action. And this nation will act.” (After 9/11, U.S. built on world bases; James Sterngold, Chronicle Staff Writer; Sunday, March 21, 2004; SFGate.com)

In our opinion, this is a very radical approach and it could be justified highly because of the recent events of the time. On the other hand, it could be argued that this “new” policy- National Security Strategy- is a constructive way of establishing defense and protection. We ask you all who visit our site to comment your opinion on this (6 year old) “new policy” and what theory do you think this policy follows.

 Michael & Amy

Our narrowed focus is going to be on post-9/11 US foreign policy on terrorism.  We are just going to focus of international policies that deal with terrorism and that have been altered or created as a direct effect of the events of 9/11/01.  Also, the international procedures that the US has taken to protest itself from further harm by terrorism. 

Our topic of focus is going to be international relations regarding national security and how the safety and
security of a nation changes how the nation deals with other countries,
maybe how that changes in a time of war etc.  In particular which laws, agencies, etc. that go with it specifically for the
U.S.

As you know, I have been gone all week and I noticed that this blog post was not posted so I am going to post it now.  The most significant moment in my life was going abroad to New Zealand for a semester.  I was put in many challenging situations whether I was hiking, camping, kayaking etc.  It was so significant becuase not only was I immersed in another culture for half a year but I learned things about myself that I never knew like I could survive some really harsh circumstances and innovate ways to survive hard outdoors situations.  I was also able to do things like sky dive, bungy jump and white water raft that I never thought I would have the guts to do.