International relations is the study of the interactions among the various actors that participate in international politics.  Before this course (250) I really thought the brief ceremonies and meetings between Bush/Condelezza Rice and the other heads of nations that I saw on TV, were the main interactions we, USA, had with other countries.  I was terribly wrong.  There are countless connections between citizens of every nation around the world.  I am included in international relations and can have an effect on people around the world.  Through cosmopolitanism I have contemplated that maybe I have a moral responsibility to the people from Nepal and Argentina, to everyone.  What a tremendous idea.  It is interesting that it kind of stems back to the idea that I learned ever since kindergarten when I began my private Catholic school education, “treat your neighbor as you would like to be treated.”

            International relations has enabled me to look at every situation in a different perspective that I previously would not have known existed.  What am I doing?  Who does it affect?  Is it good for me?  Is it good for them?  How should it be?

            This summer I will be working for the District Attorney’s Office of Philadelphia.  I will be able to directly experience the judicial system and the government in general.  I hope to get a better understanding of the government this summer and use the tools I’ve learned from International Relations and apply them to the judicial system in Philadelphia.  Thanks Professor Dasovic.

-Brendan

One of the most controversial issues in arms trade today is the China-Darfur link.  China has been accused of providing the Arabic janjaweed with the arms they have used to destroy villages in Darfur.  In return China receives oil to sustain its growing population and economy.  Is this moral?  Should China be allowed to provide weapons to fuel ethnic conflict while providing oil for its own citizens?

            A rule-based perspective clearly says no.  This perspective focuses on solitary actions and choices, not outcomes.  Providing arms for ethnic cleansing is immoral no matter what.  The end result does not even cross the minds of those who hold this perspective.  This action of selling arms for the purpose of tribal conflict is immoral and should not be allowed.

            In contrast, an ends-based perspective focuses on the overall outcome of the situation.  What will happen in the long-term? Will the outcome outweigh the means?  Can any good come out of the trade?  Will the Chinese people greatly benefit?  I believe that this perspective is more applicable to the anarchic nature of world politics.  An ends-based perspective would say that the Chinese were justified in selling the arms to the Sudanese government, if the long-term outcome was beneficial to the Darfur area and the Chinese people.  If the arms only ever benefited the Sudanese government and the janjaweed then the Chinese would not be justified.  However if the arms provided, helped to alleviate conflict/violence and promote justice and equality, even if violence occurred, the Chinese would be justified.  Yet it does not seem that this is the case.  It seems the Chinese made the trade in order to provide their own booming economy with oil and with no care towards the Darfur situation.  Since it has been shown that the Sudanese have provided the janjaweed with Chinese arms in order to massacre villages in Darfur, the trade was not moral. 

However who is to tell the Chinese not to look after their own people?  The Chine population in exploding and it has been shown that the Chinese government has made great strides in decreasing poverty.  Yet I do not believe that the Chinese can benefit because of blatant genocide.  The Chinese cannot fuel an unjust war in order to gain oil. 

            I believe that the arms trade definitely needs more regulation and transparency.  Countries and companies should not be able to deal whatever and to whomever simply to make a profit.  A combination of rule-based and ends-based morality must be used.  The means, intentions, and outcomes of a trade all must be moral, as the tridimensional ethics mentions.

             There are 4 important views of the state: Realism, Liberalism, Radicalism, and Constructivism.  Realism views that the state is the main actor in the international system; it has definite power, and is able to exercise that power in many ways.  The state is constrained by the anarchy of the international system and it is able to use force if necessary.  The Liberalist view holds that the state is not autonomous in that the state is a pluralist territory in which multiple interests compete.  However liberalists do believe that the state has definite power.  The Radicalist view says that the state acts in response to the capitalist system.  There are two main views within radicalism stemming from Marxism: the instrumental and structural.  In simple terms the instrumental view holds that the state acts mainly in response to the interests of the bourgeoisie.  The structural view holds that the state acts in accordance to the greater capitalist system.  The Constructivist view is that the interests of the state are always changing and are dictated by ideas that often stem from IGOs, NGOs, and other supranational organizations.

            Arms dealing can be categorized into legal, illegal, and often murky.  In all senses the main actors are the state.  In the legal sense there are many documents that must be signed and approved in order to deal arms.  The arms go directly from state to state.  In the illegal sense there are often middlemen that act as a front for the state in order for the state to be discrete.  Murky means that the true maker of the deal is often unclear and the state-associations of the dealer are often unclear.  The realist view of the function of the state is most applicable for the dealing of arms.  Much of this information I have learned from this useful website.  http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/sierraleone/breakingnews.html  It describes the practices of five of the most or previously most prominent arms dealers in the world.  They were directly involved in dealing arms to Argentina during the Falkland Wars with the UK, the Cold War, and deals that have gone bad such as the “Peruvian deal, when 10,000 AK-47s you sold to the Peruvian government ended up with FARC leftist guerillas in Colombia.”  Sarkis Soghanalian, a previous arms dealer for the US, said the business is built on trust yes, but also secrecy.  The US watched his every move.  They allowed him to deal arms to Argentina even though they were supporting the UK during the Falkland Wars. 

                 From the PBS website and the International Action Network on Small Arms http://www.iansa.org/issues/arms_brokers.htm website, the techniques of states are described.  They are able to pursue all of their interests through complex arms dealings.  If the deal is to an ally or made to make a statement, it is an open/direct deal.  But often the deals made are secretive and the states do not want others to be able to trace the deals back to them.  In these situations the states employ middlemen, such as Soghanalian who are able to transfer arms behind the scenes.  For example Jean Bernaud Lasnaud, another arms dealer, made international deals that were approved by states.  One of the controversial deals he made was: 

“Between 1992 and 1995, Argentina’s President Carlos Menem signed several decrees authorizing sales of Argentine-made arms to Uruguay and Panama. But the true destinations were Croatia, which was under a U.N. arms embargo, and Ecuador, embargoed by the 1945 Rio Accord because of its ongoing war with Peru.”

 Lasnaud made these deals, but would have never made them without the so-called “wink” of nations.  The US was criticized for not arresting Lasnaud when he stayed in the US. He made deals that agreed with US interests so he was in the clear.

            These middlemen are certainly important, but only an important link.  They often have one or a few state ties.  An arms dealer gets the approval from states to make deals, whether legally or illegally or murkily.  Arms dealers do not “whore” themselves out, because they cannot please everyone.  And if they do not please their customers (the states) they are in serious danger.  The states certainly have primacy.

First an introduction to the dealing of arms is appropriate.  This industry is most developed in the most powerful countries in the world.  The website http://www.controlarms.org/  provides pertinent and eye-opening information.  The five permanent members of the United Nations (US, UK, France, Russia, China), sell 80 percent of the legal weapons worldwide.  From 1998-2001 the US, UK, and France earned more money from selling weapons to developing countries than the aid they gave those same countries.  And as recently mentioned in class, the US dwarfs the entire world in regards to the amount of money it spends on its defense/security/arms.

            Liberalists would probably hold that this situation has gotten out of hand and needs reformed.  However due to the interdependence and anarchic nature of the international system change will be slow and painful.  They believe that individuals are good and change can come from anywhere from states to NGOs and international organizations.

            Realists would hold that this industry is really power, which is really security.  Dealing arms = lots of money = security.  The realist theory says that the international system is complete anarchy and the only way to protect oneself is to be a player in the balance-of-power system.  The US is clearly doing a good job. 

            The radicals might hold that those producing the arms have all the power.  If the US produces the guns they have power, if Chinese workers make the guns they have the power, and so on.  These factories and workers can protest and everything can fall apart.  Yet as long as the workers produce the arms, the global powers in the core will exploit those countries outside of the core in the periphery through the capitalist system.

            Constructivists say that the dealing of arms has been completely created by the beliefs and ideas of the ruling elite.  Since Bush definitely believes in the importance of dealing arms, it has become important.  Everyone’s ideas matter, but in a logical way only the ideas of the rulers really get put into play.  Through democratic practices hopefully we can put rulers into power who do not want to continue the unbelievable industry of arms.

            I think it is easy to look at facts, see pictures, and watch movies about this situation and realize the cruelty and objectivity of it all.  US companies such as Lockheed-Martin and Boeing produce ridiculous amounts of weapon and perform tremendous amounts of research.  These products and the information help other countries fight wars and ultimately kill thousands of people.  Yet the power created through our dealing of arms keeps us alive.  Since the United States has such global power we are able to live freely.  I am able to wear whatever clothes I want, pray or not pray to whatever deity I want, and get a tattoo on my face like Mike Tyson if it so pleases me.  As I begin to learn about this process, I don’t want to hate too much on the US.  Yes I would like things to be different, but I have to count my blessings as well.

We would like to explore and discuss the international effects of the selling of arms.  Who sells the arms?  Who buys the arms?  What is done with the arms?  Who gains and who loses?  These are all questions we hope to address throughout the semester.  The movie, Lord of War, starring Nicholas Cage, portrays in Hollywood-style how rich white men profit from genocides in other countries and brings up ethical questions that are sometimes seen as secondary to a nation’s profit of dealing arms.  We were also motivated by the article posted by Professor Dasovic about the relationship between China/Darfur and what will ensue in the coming months of the Olympics.

I, as a consumer, have the power to dictate what occurs within the realm of international relations, simply by existing. Since I have the will power to decide what different products I want or even purchase, I also create a necessity for these products to exist. And, as incredible as the United States is, there are some products that I will assuredly desire that do not exist here, in America.
Therefore – my wants and desires surely reverberate outside my country’s borders and affect the world around me. And besides, everyone knows the best shark fin soup can only be found in Laos.

So far, the most meaningful event in my life has been my experience on a Kairos retreat my senior year of high school.  The bases of this retreat are openness and understanding.  At this retreat I truly realized what it meant to be a compassionate human in this world and how I want to live my life.

            I went on this retreat with approximately 40 male classmates.  We were led by retreat leaders who were also our fellow classmates that had already experienced the retreat.  This was a Catholic retreat but religion really did not matter; it was about humanity.  Classmates that I barely knew told amazing and devastating stories that they had never shared before.  I learned of my fellow classmates struggles: suicide, drug addiction, unloving parents, and so on.  On this retreat I finally realized the fragility of each guy; no longer did I think of 18 year old 300 pound linemen as emotionless.  I learned every guy’s story and also some of their deepest secrets.

            During this retreat I was able to eliminate previous pre-conceived notions and learned to treat a person with respect no matter what.  Everyday since I have attempted to live what I have learned on this retreat.  It has been a struggle no doubt, but I try.

If there were one event that had such an impressive impact on my life, so that I could divide my existence into two separate eras, I believe it would have been the collective experience of studying in Spain. This past fall semester I studied and lived in Valencia for close to six months. For the first time in my life, I was forced to look at the world through a different cultural scope. Or should I say that I was forced to look at myself through a different culture’s perspective.
Although it is ultimately impossible to be empty of all your previous knowledge and experiences – my abroad experience provided an opportunity for me to reevaluate what is truly important to me. I pondered for hours daily. And then I started thinking about nothing (which is essentially meditation) to reach sound original thoughts. I thought about: religion, politics, time, being, string theory, cops, law, death, Zen, empathy, Spain, U.S., Spanish women, and so on and so forth. Meanwhile, I was doing all of this thinking in a new language, and on my own.
It was incredible. The only fear in coming home for me was not being able to practice what I learned.