What IR means to me

IR, to me, is one of the different tools I use in my personal quest to get to know more about people who live in different places. It’s a bit simplistic, but I’ve always believed simple goals in life to be the best. I want to know more about people living in Pakistan, Lithuania, Spain, Chile, South Africa, Cuba, Crete, you name it. Whether I’m learning about Bassa archery in northern Nigeria from reading The Traditional Bowyer’s Bible or about Argentinean farmers burning fields in protest through the BBC or the role of the World Bank in helping to develop countries like Uganda and which school of IR thought that fits into through IR, the main point is that I’m learning about people and cultures that interest me. What IR has done is given me some help in looking below the surface of some events that I see in the news around the world and thinking about why they’re happening and how they’ll affect other things or places. I’ll be continuing with IR as a major so perhaps my view of it will change with time, but for now IR is a stepping stone to higher levels of learning about something I’m interested in. I hope the path will be interesting.

- John

Pakistan and International Financial Institutions

On June 7, 2007 The World Bank approved a package of assistance woth US $451 million to help the Pakistani Government. Most of this money will be used to improve education, enhance immigration, implement reforms in healthcare and eradicate polio in Pakistan.

“Pakistan has in recent years made good progress towards improving human development indicators and reducing poverty and vulnerability,” said Yusupha Crookes, World Bank Country Director for Pakistan. “But there can be no room for complacency. Only half of Pakistan’s adult population is literate and over 40 percent of 5-9 year olds are not in school, and poor health outcomes and high fertility will remain an obstacle to economic growth and poverty alleviation. Through improved schools, health facilities, and water provision, these projects will help the country make progress towards reaching the Millennium Development Goals and underpin prospects for high and sustained growth into the future.”

The World Bank is looking to change the lives of the poor of Pakistan. Even if the government has money and people in higher places, it is the poor (the people who need it) that will never see it. To assist, The World Bank funded the Pakistan Poverty Alleviation Fund Project. They plan on helping the poor through this program by building institutions and then supplying them with micro-credit loans.

The World Bank hopes to place a higher importance on education by assisting the Government at both the national and provinicial levels. They hope to increase the focus of strong primary and secondary education reforms. They hope to continue assisting the poor by encouraging children of poverty stricken families to attend school.

With each problem that The World Bank sees in Pakistan, they create a program to alleviate that problem : Government’s Poverty Reduction Strategy, Pakistan Poverty Allevition Fund Project, Earthquake Relief and Reconstruction Authority, Rural Housing and Reconstruction Program, National Education Assessment System, etc. Pakistan must accept these programs and reforms if the state wishes to receive any money from The World Bank. Pakistan then must give continuous updates to The World Bank to prove that they are following the reform programs and meeting each goal that has been set. The World Bank believes that this sort of cookie cutter relief program is applicable to any state in need and that by a state meeting a goal, it means that the state will be able to continue to thrive once The World Bank stops giving assistance. However, only time will tell if the reform programs actually help the people and the government, or if the programs will cease to exist one The World Bank determines that Pakistan can take care of her people on her own.

click here for more information on The World Bank’s reforms in Pakistan

Ends-Based vs. Rules-Based Decisions in Pakistan

The Republic of Pakistan is the state that has contributed most to UN Peacekeeping Missions, having participated in 28 missions since 1962. Pakistan also received assistance from Peacekeeping missions following the Indo-Pakistan war.

Pakistan’s decision to participate in peacekeeping missions can be seen as both ends-based and rules-based. It is rules-based because when seeing a country in need of assistance, Pakistan is usually the first one to step up and provide assistance. However, the majority of Pakistan’s decisions to become involved in these missions have been ends-based. It is the military-operational benefits that come in participating in a UN Peacekeeping Mission that ultimately drives Pakistan to continue to fight for the moral issues of other states.

With 8544 personnel having been deployed in various states, Pakistan ranks highest as a participator. The other top five contributors are Bangladesh, Nigeria, Ghana, and India. All five of these states are considered developing nations, which causes one to ask, why do developing nations help more in peacekeeping in other countries? However, by participating in these operations, the states that contribute most also gain the most. Looking at the situation from a present view, it would seem as if the state participating loses. As developing nations, these states need to maintain their operational armies, and by deploying the amount of troops that they do, they lessen their own defence within their state. But in the end, the state prospers because of their involvement. This is why it is a ends-based decision. At the time, Pakistan may suffer with so many of their troops abroad, but while abroad they “learn new techniques of planning; logistics and communications skills; command and control structures; methods of coordination and use state of the art weaponry and machinery. This military training and exposure has proved to be invaluable to the Pakistan Army. President General Pervez Musharraf in an interview said; ‘we would like to contribute as many troops as possible anywhere in the world.’” (http://www.issi.org.pk/journal/2004_files/no_3/article/3a.htm).

Ethics and Morality in the Pakistani Political Situation

After scoring a victory over the extremist religious parties in North-West Frontier Province in Pakistan, the moderate Awami National Party is now prepared to negotiate with militants fighting in the border regions between Pakistan and Afghanistan. The party is made up primarily of members of the Pashtun ethnic group, the same group that also supplies most of the militants, which may lead to an upturn in relations and negotiations, and this coupled with the A.N.P.’s firm stance against anti-government attacks could lead to a decrease in violence in the coming months. Obviously, if a state can hold back from killing, so much the better, but the real ethical issue is not whether or not the A.N.P. will use words or bullets or both against the militants, but whether they will extend to same treatment to other, non-Pashtun militants.

“Mr. Khattak said talks with Al Qaeda and other foreign militants, many of whom come from Arab lands and Central Asia, were out of the question. “We don’t have a common language with them,” he said.”

On top of this, and more importantly:

“Negotiations, he said, were probably unsustainable with hardened Pakistani militants like Baitullah Mehsud, the man accused of masterminding most of the recent suicide bombings in Pakistan, including the one in which the opposition leader Benazir Bhutto was killed.”

What this could signal is the preferred treatment of one group over others by the government in an already notoriously divided and tribal province. The massacres in Rwanda occurred because the Belgian colonizers had favored the Tutsi ethnic group for years over others like the Hutus. With the Pashtun militants being similarly held to a different standard of measurement from the other violent groups, it could lead to a lot more bloodshed down the road than if the government was willing to deal evenly with all parties concerned.

The government of Pakistan has a moral duty to protect its citizens from violence by whatever means it has available, but to prefer one group over another- or show signs of doing so- could be considered unethical because it could very easily lead to persecution and hatred from both sides, much like the Shia/Sunni conflict in countries like Iraq. Even if the Pashtun government of the province were flat-out going to favor their own group over another, they should at least try not to show it so overtly to avoid turning the situation more ugly than it already is. Ideally and morally, all humans should be treated equally, and from the murkier state-level of morality, overt favoritism should not take place as it does the country as a whole a disservice.

From “Moderates Hold Key in Pakistan”, NY Times, March 26, 2008.

Pakistan and the Role of the State

In “Essentials of International Relations”, Mingst discusses the four fundamental conditions that must be met in order for an entity to be considered a state. Pakistan, being a state, of course meets all of these conditions. First, Pakistan has a territorial base. It is located in the middle east, north of the Arabian Sea and is bordered by Iran, Afghanistan, China, and India. The state of Pakistan also possesses a stable population . With a federal parliamentary system, President as Head of State, and indirectly-elected Prime Minister as the chief executive, the Government of Pakistan holds the population’s allegiance. Lastly, the state must be recognized by other states. Pakistan has been a member of the United Nations since September 30, 1947 and so it fulfills all four requirements.

Pakistan fails to be considered a nation-state, due to the various cultures within the state. Pakistan is comprised of four provinces, each differing in culture. The culture of the Kashmir region, also differs from these provinces. Unrest with India remains active in this region.

The liberal view of the state can be used to analyze the U.S.’s involvement or lack there of during the Indo-Pakistan War of 1965.

Liberals believe that multiple national interests influence state actions. Consumer groups desire the oil at the lowest price possible; manufacturers, who depend on bulk suppies to run their factories, prefer stability of the supply of oil, otherwise they risk losing their jobs; producers of oil, including domestic producers, want high prices, so that they will make profits and have incentives to reinvest in drilling. The state itself reflects no consistent viewpoint about the oil; its task is to ensure that the “playing field is level” and the procedural rules are the same for the various players in the market. (Mingst, 106)

The U.S. had no consistent viewpoint about the war, much like how the state has no consisten viewpoint about the oil. However, the U.S. did care to make sure that “the playing field [was] level. It did so my declaring neutrality and cutting off military supplies to both sides despite the Agreement of Cooperation which had been signed with Pakistan. However, by not choosing one side to support, the U.S. was able to allow India and Pakistan to fight on a more equal level.

The International System and Pakistan

According to an article published in the NY Times on February 14, “religious parties are foundering”. Elections for parliament are to be held Monday, and according to a number of opinion polls, support for religious parties has fallen drastically in favor of more moderate groups. What this could mean, looking at the international system, is that change is coming. Pakistani citizens (along with those of many other eastern countries) have for the last five or six years been very loudly anti-western and anti-moderate in their political choices. According to Pakistani political analysts, this is not exactly the normal order of things:

“…the religious parties command only a small percentage of popular support and that the 2002 elections were an aberration, a reaction to the American intervention in Afghanistan and the result of rigging by Pakistan’s intelligence agencies, which have always had links with the religious parties.”

American intervention right next door, geographically speaking, caused an exogenous shock in Pakistani voting trends during the 2002 elections, and only now is it starting to return to a more normal state. In the violent northwest especially, voters are tired of the religious parties refusing to overtly criticize organizations like the Taliban and Al Qaeda, despite the harm they almost routinely cause Pakistani citizens.

“’They did not serve the people,’ said Faiz Muhammad, 47, a farmer whose son was killed in the bomb blast on an Awami political gathering on Saturday.”

Mr. Muhammad was referring to the religious parties, but resentment towards the terrorist groups is growing.

“’People are fed up because they are not opposing the attacks by the Taliban openly,’” were the words of Muhammad Jawed, a businessman.

What this shift in opinion could mean internationally is extremely important. With hard-line religious parties predicted to lose and lose badly, moderate parties are showing staggering levels of support in comparison. Terrorism and insurrection always relies, to a certain extent, upon the goodwill of the people living in the areas in which they operate. When the people as a whole begin to turn against them, they find it much harder to carry out attacks. What this might mean is another change, seen here in Pakistan as well as other Middle Eastern countries, towards a more moderate, less anti-western mindset. The ordinary people have suffered as a result of the fighting caused by the extremists, and they want it to end by electing a government who will prevent more violence, whether in the name of religion or not.

To quote Mr. Wali, a moderate who looks set to do well in the elections, “’I feel that we Pashtuns have had enough of war, enough of bloodshed, and the common man now accepts that.’”

The fire of the average citizen has finally been spent, and from the liberal view of things, this is the tip of a potentially huge iceberg. Non-state actors- in the case the citizenry of a country- are making their voices heard and saying they want no more violence, and they will back up their words with their votes. A genuinely anti-militant Pakistan could prove an immense help to western efforts in countries like Afghanistan, where tribesmen had previously tolerated militants over government soldiers, but where now the opposite might just become the case. This could mark a turning point in western relations with Pakistan as well as in western military efforts to combat terrorism. It’s early to say anything, but with a lot of luck, both the government and the people of Pakistan will agree that Pakistan will no longer be a home for religious extremism.

All quotes taken from: In Tribal Pakistan, Religious Parties Are Foundering

 

IR Theory and Pakistan

Different aspects of many of the theories of IR can be applied to Pakistan. In looking at the foreign policies of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan since the Cold War, I have noticed that many of the actions taken by this state support the Realism Theory of international relations. Here, I will look at Pakistan from the eyes of a realist, both observing events of the past and looking towards the future of this state.

Pakistan has one of the largest Muslim populations in the world, and is the sixth most populous country with a population of 164,741,924 (July 2007 est.) . Realists see human nature as bad and believe that states act to pursue their own national interest. This theory is demonstrated through the foreign relations of Pakistan and history with various allied countries. Being the only Islamic nation to declare nuclear power shows Pakistan’s intent to pursue power.

Pakistan’s past relations with the US and other allied nations corresponds with the anarchic, or self-help system of realism. This was especially evident during the 1965 Indo-Pakistan war. This war caused Pakistan to believe that the US was not reliable as an ally because of the effects of its suspension of aid to Pakistan. However, Pakistan was interested in relative gains and so relations improved with the US and arms sales were renewed in 1975. The improvement relations with Bangladesh also serves as an example to the realist theory that enemies can become allies as states pursue national interest.

So what does the future hold for Pakistan? Realism shows that an ally may not always be that way. In this anarchic world, no state can be trusted. Although relations with India have improved, a struggle for power still exists in the Kashmir region. Since, according to realists, it is human nature to be in conflict, this peaceful time and cease fire will not last. And, as with the Athenians conquer of the Melians, Pakistan could use its power to overcome states that do not assist in its conquest of India in Kashmir. Poor neighbor relations will prove to be difficult for Pakistan in the future and as the need to display power increases, so will the tension along the borders.

The Pakistani Political Situation

With President and ex-general Pervez Musharraf growing increasingly unpopular, we plan to monitor the political situation in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. With elections coming in February after being delayed by Musharraf due to internal instability, who will rise to the top? What role will the assassination of Benazir Bhutto play? Will a moderate, pro-American government be elected, or will the growing Islamic fundamentalist factions emerge victorious? We will try to understand what sort of role Pakistan will play (and be able to play) on the world stage in the near future, and whether or not they will defeat their own fundamentalists or be absorbed by them.

My effect on international relations

Let’s begin with a light anecdote to get the ball rolling. During the summer back home, I work at my local zoo’s gift shop/cafe, stocking the store from the warehouse and occasionally  manning one of Aramark’s outflung stands inside the park selling souvenirs. It was a typical day in August, meaning it was hot and humid and ungodly bright, and the 400 pound tortoises behind me were doing what 400 pound tortoises do best, which is make lots of little 2 oz. tortoises very loudly. As I stood there, bored, hawking my wares, two small children of indeterminate sex and their father (wearing a cowboy hat, it should be noted) came into view. “Daddy, Daddy, can we buy something?” one of the two children cried, hope evident in his tone.

That child’s father looked his son/daughter in the eye and said, very calmly, without changing his expression: “No dear. Everything we buy helps to prolong the agony of the Malaysian slave children who have to make it all.”

Many would call me poker-faced, but it took all I had to remain upright, let alone to keep a straight face. When he came nearer, I extended my hand and shook his, glad to be accorded the privilege of meeting a parent so creatively able to tell their son/daughter “No” and succeed with no protests on the part of the little one.

We went out separate ways, but that incident now makes me think: the two of us knew he wasn’t really serious about what he said, but what if he was still right? That’s where I come into things. I am, at this present moment, wearing an extremely comfortable shirt of red cotton, long john style, made in Lesotho for Gap, if the label is assumed to be correct. It’s not Malaysia, but the principle is the same- my shirt came from a small, fairly poor nation, with dubious child work laws. By accepting this gift, I’m helping to pay the wages of someone living in a small country who relies a lot on the export of clothing, according to wikipedia. To quote: “Lesotho has taken advantage of the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) to become the largest exporter of garments to the US from sub-Saharan Africa. Exports totaled over $320 million in 2002. Employment reached over 50,000, marking the first time that manufacturing sector workers outnumbered government employees.”

It’s a long way from there to here, but if people like me didn’t buy clothes like the shirt I’m wearing, someone over there could potentially not have a job to feed themself or their family with. By choosing to buy something- nearly anything, these days- I am directly responsible for stimulating the economy of a minimum of two different countries. It’s a small power, but it’s power nonetheless. When millions like me do the same, official foreign policy reflects that. One snowflake starts the avalanche, even if you can’t tell which one it was. Maybe it was me.

And as a P.S., “Significant levels of child labour exist in Lesotho, and the country is in the process of formulating an Action Programme on the Elimination of Child Labour (APEC), which is likely to be adopted in the period 2006-2007 (see Child labour in Lesotho).”

- John

Rachel’s Monumental Event

I’ve always had an interest in foreign cultures, in travel, in language. It was in eighth grade that I went on my first mission trip with Habitat for Humanity International. I knew that what I was doing was good, I knew that in helping to build a home for a family in need I was making a difference, but I didn’t feel so changed by the event. Two years later I again joined up with Habitat for Humanity and went on a build in Honduras…still, I knew I was making a difference, but didn’t quite understand how. And so it happened that in February of 2007 I finally had a monumental event that changed my life. Our Habitat Mission Team decided that instead of choosing a new location for our trip, we would venture back to Honduras. I wasn’t exactly thrilled by this idea as I wanted to travel to a new part of the world. Early on in our trip we planned to visit the families whose houses we had helped to build two years before. I figured that this would just be a small out of the way trip to see some ordinary cinder block house and talk with a family that probably had three other teams that had also helped and who would barely remember us. There were only three of us from the original group who had returned to Honduras and so I was pushed to the front of the pack in hopes from the others that we would be recognized. I nervously moved forward not knowing what to expect. A woman peered out at us from her window and came running outside. I was amazed to see her reaction. She quickly flung open the gate and called us onto her porch. My mom pushed me ahead urging me to follow the woman, but I had a hard time simply walking. As I made my way through the gate I was flooded with emotions and memories from the build. She called her children onto the porch to greet us who gave us all hugs and a joyous welcome. This reunion was followed by a tour of the house. A house that I had helped to build. Finally I could see the finished product. I saw the sturdy walls to keep them safe, the kitchen to prepare their meals, the beds to be their nightly comfort. And I saw the pictures. I saw my picture. Strewn about the shelftop were the polaroids that we had taken during the build and given to the family. The time that I spent inside of that concrete house in a small village in Honduras truly changed me forever. It’s not that I’m so radically different from the person that I was before. I volunteered, had an interest in the world, a desire to help others, but I never realized how amazingly rewarding my work could be. I never knew the impact that I could make on someone’s life with my small tasks. When we left that day, it wasn’t for the physical building of the home that we were thanked, it was for our time, for our caring. That is the moment that has made me want to continue to travel to such places and reach out to as many people as possible.