From Culture to Culture

In this blog I would like to explain my own perspective, the same Scott raised in this blog too: “If we come from a different cultural background, how can we ever know what motivates a person from another culture?”

I've always been fascinated with international relations, mostly because it always impacted my own growing up and perspectives I've gained during the past 15 years. When I moved to the United States 10 years ago, I had no real idea of how different we are from each other even though both Germany and the US are considered as Western states. 

My initial questions were “How do you learn about people's cultures?” and more importantly “How do you build relationships with people from other cultures?” To me, the only way to do that was to open my mind and try to understand where people come from, their experience and history.

Building relationships across cultures was key to me. I traveled the world and my goal was to understand other cultures and bring in my perspective as well. Relationships are powerful. Our one-to-one connections with each other are the foundation for change. And building relationships with people from different cultures, often many different cultures, widens our horizons and makes us more receptive to necessities for world change, peace, and global projects.

I believe that having an open mind to any conflict situation and listening to all the different perspectives has made me more versatile and receptive in the job I am working in today. I work with different cultures every day and understand their backgrounds, gender dynamics, work ethics and attitudes much better.

However, the most interesting and to me unexpected quality I’ve learned during my time in the US and my travels was to become aware of my own culture. It never occurred to me that I myself had a gap in my knowledge about myself and where I come from. When we study in high school, we are most likely to learn about our own countries in a biased way. When I took political science and history in the United States I realized that the first step in learning about other people's culture is to know my own.

It took my years to do that and understand. Now I assimilate with both the US and Germany and I can still see tremendous difference in policy decision making strategy, relevance of issues and the idea of living per se. I think we learn more every day and we should never be certain that we are complete in terms of understanding where people come from and why they act in a certain way.

A Grand Unifying Theory of International Relations?

Last night, the question (paraphrased here) was asked “If we come from a different cultural background, how can we ever know what motivates a person from another culture?” The question was asked in the context of designing overarching studies and theories in order to provide a generalized understanding or explanation of international relations. But it led to me think about it in relation to my time in the Army and our reliance on cultural studies and a general lack of cultural awareness that existed in the 2-3 years following the 9/11 attacks.

            I remember and refer back to my own experiences, where it took about two years of deployments and deployment preparation to get a general understanding of the populations we were living near and working in. And even then, I know that my understanding was limited to the relatively small chunk of earth that was Salah ad Din province and parts of Kirkuk in Iraq. There were some generalities amongst Iraqis and more broadly Arabs I picked up from reading and observing, but I was specifically familiar with Iraqi Sunni Arabs and to a lesser extent, Iraqi Sunni Kurds. But one critical shortfall was I didn’t speak either Arabic or Kurdish. I don’t know how anyone can delude themselves into thinking that they can design an empirical study to provide an overarching explanation of how interact with each other and why humans act the way they do in international relations. Through careful study and observation, I was able to get moderately comfortable with a relatively small population. With years more dedication to studying, time spent in the country and learning the language, I think I could reach what is called expertise and explain how this one population acted and thought as well as why.

            I think one thing that can’t be accounted for in international relations theories is the way in which people communicate between each other when they don’t speak the same language. That has to play a huge role in state-to-state interactions. Some words and expressions just don’t translate. And then I’m reliant on an intermediary to put those un-explainable phrases or words into a context that I’ll understand. I’m reminded of a story my wife tells of when she was visiting family in Italy during a foreign study break in college. She was with a cousin, watching an American comedy show she had seen several times before, but now translated and overdubbed into Italian. My wife knew from memory the joke in English and laughed. Her cousin sort of stared at her. My wife then explained the joke in English, since her cousin was fairly fluent and they both agreed the joke was much funnier in English, because in Italian it didn’t make any sense. That’s just a mundane cultural misunderstanding. How does the work of the international realm get done when the parties can’t or don’t communicate in the same language and you run the risk of important details being lost in translation? And how then can you design a study to empirically explain state-level, NGO, and IGO interactions when there is a multitude of languages and cultures mixing with each other?

            I don’t see how you can do any more than either become or rely on experts in narrow fields of specialty.

How do symbolic technologies rethink social theory?

Within the past week, we've been able to examine whether actors attribute particular focus to ideal interests or to socially informed intentions. Before the discussion I had a general understanding of how social theory provides us with a political lens for international actors. Now, I  have questions as to what separates rationalist literature and constructivist literature? These different modalities of "personhood" draw distinctions among the different types of social actions. And, because of these key roles, social modality theories create differences based on boundaries. It was explained by Professor Jackson's Soliloquy that these broad world views assume are merely analytical tools to identify common goals and intersecting preferences. But, does this interest based approach to Foreign policy/IR falls short from the perspective of a constructivist (Laffy and Weldes)? --Yes. According to the text it focuses on the empirical investigation between our capacity to validate knowledge from the social condition and conduct, which challenges constitution.

Building on these ideas, I'd like to revisit a claim made in " Beyond Belief: Ideas and Symbolic Technologies in the Study of IR", in which the authors challenge parallel associations between ideas and interests. They argue that in maintaining the distinction between Ideas and interests, " the investigation of the social constriction of interests is in practice disavowed because it is assumed, despite theoretical pronunciations to the contrary, that interests are given and can be determined in isolation from 'ideas'" (Laffey and Weldes, 200). This view criticizes a social construction of interest, which assumes that interest and ideas are an extension of value commitments shared beyond an individual. How So? --Such commitments are socialized and located into an environment where norms drive actions. Laffey and Weldes try to show that existing theories on ideas depend on metaphors and assumed analogies of "personhood" and ideas.

They primarily focus on the constitution of a person, the constitution of an environment, and the dynamic between the two. They conceive rationality as a social characteristic, not an individual one. In thinking this way do they really achieve a stronger conceptualization of ideas? How do symbolic technologies improve or rethink social theory from rationalist literature? 

Is Weber ethnocentric?

Post - class Blog
During the online class there were a number of comments about Weber indicating that he was fixated on the superiority of the West or perhaps that he was championing the development of capitalism in the West.
I am sure that I am not fully grasping all that Weber was laying out, but my take away was a bit different.  It seems that Weber is providing an analysis of the West that helps to explain why it looks different than the rest of the world.  What is the nature of this difference.  And what structures can be examined to understand the differences.  Clearly for Weber religion plays a significant role in how a society evolves, especially in regards to economics ("the influence of certain religious ideas on the origin of an "economic frame of mind," (Weber 161)

But in attempting to try to figure out how this fits into the study of IR, it is Weber's notion that,
            It is necessary, in order to identify the ways in which the multiple rationalization
            paths have characteristically varied according to cultural and historical factors to
            assess which arenas have been rationalized and in what directions. (Weber 160)
strikes me as part of the constructivist school of thought.

Weber is not offering a judgement but an analysis.  He doesn't want to "expend a single work on behalf of the relative value of the civilizations compared here."  But he does want us to reflect on the civilization as we would "standing before the ocean...".  What can we know of something so wide and deep as we stand on the shore?
My understanding of the constructivism is that it requires the same approach on which Weber insists.  (Is this different than Post-colonial critique?  I am a bit fuzzy on the differences.) We need to understand the ideas and interests of other nations/civilizations based on an understanding of their history, culture, religion, etc.  "What may appear rational viewed from one angle may appear irrational when viewed from another." (Weber 160)

Week 3 Post - What makes an Individual?

Our discussion in lecture on what makes and individual, do they have an essence, etc. was very intriguing.  One important aspect of this discussion,  that Heiti brought up, was human variation.  I agree with her conclusion that  states "I would argue that the biological part of heredity is a fixed variable, versus all other aspects depending on the time, environment and circumstances are flexible and hence ever changing and impacting the fixed biological aspect. "  This is similar to Hobbes in that  all experience is subjective because it is impossible for man to process things the same; it varies from person to person no matter how biologically similar they are.

In furthering Heiti's discussion, I can provide a unique insight into this topic.  I am an identical twin, therefore, genetically my sister and I are clones of one another.  Despite this genetic similarity, we are different in our personalities, interests, knowledge, etc.  Our environment, culture and upbringing were exactly the same so why are we different?  Why am I better at science and math while she excels in the arts?  This inherent difference would lead me to believe two things.  First, every experience is subjective; no matter how many people experience the same event all of those experiences will be different.  Second, the best way to define this inherent difference would be one's essence.  My essence is different than my sisters because we are different individuals. 

According to Jean-Paul Sartre man has no nature and therefore, his existence comes before his essence.  Man's essence is determined by our choices and interpretations of our experiences.1  Sartre's concept goes along with Hobbes.  What makes an individual is one's essence.  If one is follow Sartre's train of thought then an essence is not inherent, but created.  Therefore, the next theological question is  when does one start to exists? This answer would determine when an individual starts to have experiences. 

1. Flynn, Thomas, "Jean-Paul Sartre", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2013 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2013/entries/sartre/>.

Interest vs. Idea and NATO

I’ve begun my researching for my project on NATO’s membership expansion in 1999 and it’s been interesting to see the intersection of what Dr. Jackson defined as “interest”, the well-formed calculation made against the constraints and opportunities available at the time of the decision and what he defined as “idea”, this broader set of normative conditions that exist between actors as part of the cultural environment.

Both are prominent in The North Atlantic Treaty, where the preamble states:

The Parties to this Treaty reaffirm their faith in the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and their desire to live in peace with all peoples and all governments.

They are determined to safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilisation of their peoples, founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law. They seek to promote stability and well-being in the North Atlantic area.

They are resolved to unite their efforts for collective defence and for the preservation of peace and security.

–      Washington, D.C. , April 4, 1949

So in one paragraph, NATO is identifying with the principles of the UN, wherein all states desire to live in peace and security and are promoting that idea in the North Atlantic coupled with what the signatories see as the preservation of a common heritage and the protection of the of the Western mode of government (individual rights, democrat, belief in the rule of law) and to do so collectively via military means if necessary.  Each country must see some level value to their particular state within the agreement, although there are probably as many, if not more, reasons for doing so.

At this point, I would be inclined to assess that interests must be developed from and defined by ideas. Using NATO as the example, NATO members are rationally joining a regional security effort to protect and preserve the ideas they see as important. Without those ideas, what would be the need for NATO? Why would what is now 28 countries agree to mutually support the defense of their co-signers without an idea that they have in common? Without the idea, there doesn't appear to be a reason to sign the treaty at all.

As my research continues, it will be interesting to see how additional information and perspectives change my thoughts, if in fact they do change.

Week 3 After Blog – Is Heredity Only Biological?

I thought I will try to get a grasp on the topic of human variation and hence whether heredity is only biological or not. I tend to think that heredity is simply biological, especially considering the immense work and development in scientific analysis of genes and how people relate. I would think that my entire gene pool is made up of the gene pools from my past and based on the immediate family I was born in to. Most parallels of heredity we hear nowadays have mostly to do with traits that are passed on from one generation to the other. However, by thinking more closely about it, I came to the conclusion that heredity includes much more than only biological aspects. I was looking for a definition for heredity and I found this one. According to Merriam Webster heredity is “the sum of the characteristics and potentialities genetically derived from one's ancestors.” Now that makes sense, according to my own thinking. However, but then it also says “tradition” and general “inheritance”. In my mind, this could mean a lot of things.

So taking a step back, it makes sense to think about heredity in a different way. And I asked myself the question of what kind of heredity is considered to be “biological”? What about the cultural aspects and how plays contemporary social and political aspects into the equation. In a basic way, mankind is not only existing in the way they live based on their genetically makeup, but also by believes, culture, value systems and social environment. That all together is passed on to next generations. Thus, it can’t only be biological.

An example is depression. Many scientists say that depression is a genetically disorder. However, I don’t think that is true. I believe that people with depression, even though some more prone to it than others, are also inherently influenced by their contemporary environment and their historical culture and the way they grew up. I reject the idea that just because my grandmother was sick, means I am more prone to be sick with the same illness.

In that same way, I doubt that a y-generation has the same issues than the baby boomers. There are different environments, cultures, social aspects and political circumstance we grow up in and hence this is a constant change. In fact, I would argue that the biological part of heredity is a fixed variable, versus all other aspects depending on the time, environment and circumstances are flexible and hence ever changing and impacting the fixed biological aspect. 

On Max Weber: Universal Values and Validation of European Culture

In light of the pre-class blog requirement I wanted to bring particular focus to Max Weber's text: "The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism", in which he posits that western empirical knowledge and european culture has largely validated how we come to understand what is culturally significant. It is through the European lens that scientifically justified rationalism shows an inclination for western social order and against non-western cultural paradigms. Weber notes that "Capitalism implies the pursuit of forever renewable profit", as opposed to the pursuit of monetary gain to sustain social welfare. His essays include other remarks on the sociology of theological wisdom however, the focus for this distinctly western thought pattern occupies a rational structure of universalism in regard to protestant ethics.

Because of this epistemology, development tends to reference social progress from the standpoint of opportunity and conceptual developments of free labor and open trade.

Weber sheds light on the degree of European notions of progress with respect to "technical applications of science" and what were the determining factors that encouraged a culturally biased validation of advancement. He questions: "How did it happen that scientific, artistic and economic development , as well as state-building, were not directed in China and India into those tracks of rationalization specific to the West? (Weber, 159) Part of the issue exists in the religious differences and political achievements of, for example ancient Greek civilization and ancient Confucian civilization. Ancient Greek culture begins with a philosophical interrogation of abstract forms, dialectic, and dualism. In contrast, Confucianism has an assumed primacy of relationships and dispenses with notions of dualism and abstract forms. Two very different takes on mans role in the world: one where man achieves notoriety in pursuit of ideal goods through rationalization and the other where man achieves notoriety in the strengthening of consummate relationships or sympathy for human existence (Ren).

http://www.worldsecuritynetwork.com/no_topic/Kumar-Dr.-Ravindra/Political-Morality-and-Confucianism-The-Interpretation-of-Li-Yi-and-Ren

Weber's Capitalism: Capitalism determines a form of paradigm for development: we can validate cultural advancement in the creation of technology, the proliferate of free trade, and a strong middle class.

Weber's Middle Class is rendered through an organization of particular features such as: free labor, natural sciences, controlled experimentation and innovative technological production,

After the class I hope to have a better understanding of how the protestant ethic dictates cultural significance in the western perspective.

Week 3 – PreBlog The different purpose of ideas

After reading all the scholastic pieces and listening to Prof. Jacksons lesson, I was thinking about the 2 by 2 matrix and its implications on real policy decisions within the international system.

One topic that came to mind is foreign aid. Why do countries give foreign aid? And under what category would that fall? Many countries do have official development assistance programs, but I wonder whether all of them integrated these programs for the same purpose. What is the reason for giving foreign aid? Are people acting based on interest or ideas, so basically is the rational calculation behind giving aid or is it simply the right thing to do. Maybe a mix of both. Last week we presented our power point presentations and many times we questioned the motives or intentions of these organizations. This just shows, that it is not quite simple to determine whether they serve the purpose of saving countries or whether there is a strategic goal behind giving foreign aid. I would think that every country has their own objective and that many have a different purpose.

In fact, I think that the purpose must be different, because as we saw based on the lecture and readings, the ideas which mark a nation’s identity and the different ideas must motivate different purpose for policy decisions and hence for giving aid.

Difficult to decide on interest or ideas.

For the pre-class blog on ideas and interests I wanted to explore Goldstein and Keohane notion that "for traditionalist or religious fundamentalist societies even today, the individualistic and secular scientific premises of this world view remain intellectually and morally alien."(Goldstein and Keohane 9)
When I first read this I immediately thought about the Mexica and the founder's purposeful creation of a religion and a history that established a world view that required specific acts by individuals as well as the society.  The Mexica understood that if they were going to be a great tribe they needed a great history.   They destroyed their written history and created a new one with the intention of erasing the past and inspiring for the future.  They also created a religion that explained the cosmic battles and the role that the tribe was required to play.  This kind of intentional creation of a world view seems to go beyond what the authors delineate in their three concepts of World view, principled beliefs, and causal beliefs.  It seems that at least the elite of the Mexica manipulated religion and history because they understood the function that these play in shaping the actions of individuals and the institutions of government.
But I also wondered about the modern fundamentalist.  During some of the bleaker periods of the GW Bush's administration I seem to recall a number of blogs and comments arguing that Bush's actions (or inactions in the case of climate issues) were partially due to his evangelical Christian world view.  Why worry about climate change if the judgement day is coming?  Why not hasten the battle of Armageddon by embarking on non-stop wars in the Middle East?  I am not sure that any of this analysis actually applies to the Bush administration, but I wonder how Goldstein and Keohane might apply their framework to Bush's decision.  The U.S. has many interests in the Middle East, was the decision to attack Iraq based on these interests or on ideas?  Were the ideas principled beliefs (Iraqis deserve democracy), or were they causal beliefs (getting rid of Iraq's wmd will bring peace)?

Motive versus Intent

This weeks readings dealt with the concept of where, how (or even if) ideas impact International Relations and defining what it is an “idea” is. There was also discussion of whether interests, ideas, or both impact the realm of International Relations.  This is a continuation of the discussion introduced under constructivist theory as to whether or not institutions (and the ideas that underpin them) are driven by motive or intent. I found the most clear and concise discussion was that conducted by Dr. Jackson in his online lecture.

This is an idea we recently explored in my other class this term, but looked at in a different approach regarding the extent to which the creation of international institutions and organizations are purely rational, with states calculating potential outcomes and pursuing those outcomes they feel provides the best opportunity for their state, given the constraints and opportunities available or using norms based, inter-subjective ideas of what is right to do.

An excellent example of this is the creation of the United Nations following the end of World War II. US President Franklin Roosevelt, prior to his death, and then President Harry Truman, very much saw the United Nations as an institution based on ideas, the idea that great powers had an obligation to each other and the rest of the world’s states to prevent and possibly even actively intervene in the event state-state aggression threatened. They did not see this organization as what was most likely to succeed (i.e. motivational) but rather what was believed to be the right thing to do given their power in the world (i.e. intentional) and the destruction of both World Wars.

From the interests side, we had the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, who saw the UN as a place to better advance or at least defend its interests against what it saw as the ideological hegemony of the democratic, capitalist Western great powers.  The USSR very much had a subjective state of mind and its decision to join and then later when and how to participate was based on its preferences at any given time and its assessment of the situation.

So we can see clearly in the United Nations how both ideas and interest can exist simultaneously, with one international organization being both a community and a rational institution.

Interest vs. Idea

Through this weeks lecture we learned that actors' actions are driven by either interests or ideas.  Interest is defined as the intersection between preference and some external constraints.  Essentially, a rational calculation on how to achieve a certain outcome or preference.  Reversely, an idea is defined as certain norms or values which are instilled in a person through culture, etc.  Goldstein and Keohane define ideas as "beliefs held by individuals."   An important question brought up at the end of the lecture was  how does one determine what a state's interests or beliefs are.

The fact that states are comprised of individuals makes it easier for us to analyze what ideas drive a certain state.  This can be done easily enough by examining a state's culture, religion, etc.  These cultures and beliefs create the norms or ideas of individual actors and therefore the state formed by those actors.  The harder part comes when trying to examine a state's interests.  

Ideally, a state uses interest to drive an action when it makes a rational calculation on how to get what it wants.  Theoretically, it is important to note that when making such actions, the majority of the individuals making up the state have to agree with the ways and outcome performed by the state.  For instance, a Catholic state, such as Ireland, would not legalize abortion because the individuals making up the state would not agree with it.  This raises the question  is the state's actions motivated by interest or idea?  Therefore, I do not believe that a state can apply rational logic in a situation because that logic is influenced by ideas. I believe that states apply logic and reasoning to their existing ideas to achieve national interests. 

Through these readings and lecture, I have found that you can not have interest and ideas without the other.  If ideas are intrinsic then we use these everyday when applying reason and logic without even realizing it.  If states are composed of individual actors than the same could be said about the actions of a state.  If interests and ideas are linked then what drives a state's actions when two different cultures and intrinsic values make up that state?

Language Revisited: Ontological and Epistemological Properties (Week 2)

This weeks discussion of Hobbes and Language lead to another insightful deliberation in response to other theoretical concepts such as ontology, epistemology, and perception. It was done so in the question posed to our group: Why would Hobbes start his book with a long discussion of language?  The most natural place to start is with a common discourse and shared gestures, a theme which is covered in the first chapters in Leviathan. What we know as "Language" is the bridge between the faculties of the mind, human reasoning,  and our responsibilities to communal engagement. Communication takes many forms and ultimately  takes a foundational stake hold in education, law making, science, recreation, business, and public development. In the break out session we were able to agree on these core concepts and for what purpose Hobbes justifies an explanatory model for "Nomia" or names. 

The purpose of this blog post is to address the question: Does Language have epistemological and ontological dimensions? I posit that the early chapters of Leviathan Hobbes not only recognizes that these are salient features of communication, but the very use of language ascribes particular focus to politics because of its systematic approach to the communal experience. Speech is an integral part to Hobbes' larger scale explanation of a social contract theory  --whereby elementary formations of social aims are predetermined by ontological dimensions of human actions. "The Greeks have but one word Logos, for both Speech and Reason; not that they thought there was no Speech without Reason; but no Reasoning without Speech: And the act of reasoning they called syllogism; which [signifies a summation] of the consequences of one saying to another. (Leviathan, 11).

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has always been a great tool for philosophical concepts. It has been refereed to by many respected scholars, contains peer to peer reviews and contributions. With that being said, I thought it would be noteworthy to share this information in to help clarify some of the theoretical terminology and philosophical concepts discussed last session. As Heiti has previously mentioned, the surface level conversation about language and speech could be further expanded on in conjunction with professor Trownsells' comments on the theoretical significance of perception and justified knowledge. I would also be remiss not to mention that I approach at these terms with initiatory evaluation; if anyone wishes to take a closer reading with a detailed account of these terms click the links below. It would be interesting to further in this weeks discussion and how theory relates to Hobbes' contribution to International Relations.

1.) Being and Perception
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-ontology/

Ontology is the study of being, an evaluation what is. Some contest this formulation of what ontology is, so it's only a first approximation. Many classical philosophical problems are problems in ontology: the question whether or not there is a god, or the problem of the existence of universals. For Hobbes, Ontology becomes a leading function in the human ability to frame language based on first order logic with a focus emphasis on categorized properties of objects. Hobbes does so in a preliminary evaluation of proper names: Universal, Narration, Commandment, Sermon, Affirmation, Interrogation etc. (Leviathan, 12). His assessment is mostly to showcase that speech is significant in so far as language is able to discern common properties from culturally specific understandings of the environment.

2.) How We Know

/http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/

The conscious experience is not to be confused with a person's metaphysical account of the truth and differs from ones perception of the truth. These are metaphysical dilemmas. Epistemology is the study of knowledge and justified belief. According to the SEP, Epistemology or "how we know" is concerned with the following questions: What are the necessary and sufficient conditions of knowledge? What are its sources? What is its structure, and what are its limits?" (SEP, 2014). Hobbes has provided us a systematic approach and nomenclature to understanding nature, politics, and community. Hobbes contribution to epistemology can been seen in his designations for two types of knowledge.

(a). Knowledge of Fact: History, makes note of any event or idea in a historical timeline of 'fact doing' through senses and memory.   "Politics, civil history, and the voluntary actions of men in common-wealths" is where Hobbes draws attention to the rights and duties of the political body. Language facilitates a discourse for man to understand the conditions of sovereignty and natural powers.

(b.) Knowledge of the Consequences: Science and Philosophy. Also referred to as a demonstration of consequences of one affirmation (Leviathan, 34). Here, Hobbes further clarifies the previously mentioned forms of speech in passion and how it is "either in the countenance, motions of the body, actions, ends and aims, which we otherwise know man to have." These affirmations can be in the forms: I deliberate( Interrogatively), I will (indicatively), I command (Commandingly) etc. are linguistic mechanisms to explain the diversity of matter through reasoning (-What is it how is it done, and why so? (Leviathan, 24). An explanatory model can be found in the table provided on 34 under the registers of Science.


So, to Heiti's point, Hobbes' literature poses questions to indicate that there are particular nuances to language and reasoning that contribute to the larger subject of natural law and human nature.

The Thin Line between Coercion and Rational Bargaining

The group presentations compared coercion and rational bargaining.  Through these presentations I was able to see that sometimes there is a thin line between coercion and rational bargaining.  While it was clear to determine which method some organizations used, such as the World Bank, others were a little more complicated.  The one organization I found this to be most true was the one assigned to my group, Amnesty International (AI).

Through our presentation it was easy to determine the mission of AI; an international advocate for human rights.  It was also clear on the methods AI uses in order to accomplish their mission.  In order to accomplish their mission AI exposes human rights abuses as accurately as possible by using individual case studies, patterns, etc.  These finding are then publicized in conjunction with a mobilization of public pressure on those performing said abuses.

As Matt pointed out in his comment, one could say that AI uses rational bargaining because it is not a governmental body and therefore has no real power with which to  coerce.  The premise is that AI uses rational bargaining because those performing such abuses will think rationally and do what is in their best self interest.  In doing what is in their best interest  abuses would be stopped to protect said nation's image and minimal impact socially, economically, etc.  

On the other hand coercion is about using power, pressure or fear to get a desired outcome.  Is it not true that AI has power because they have the ability to impact public opinion?  Is is not reasonable to say that if AI's campaigning and research led to a UN resolution that they must have power?   AI uses pressure to get a desired outcome.  While AI may not be able to follow it with force they can follow it with concrete actions if needed.  Isn't that essentially what coercion is?

It's hard to determine if rational bargaining or coercion is used by AI.  In my opinion, AI is between both  and depending on your views swing either way.  For this reason I feel that AI was a good organization to examine to show the thin line between coercion and rational bargaining.  Where does one start and the other begin in a case like AI?  There is no real power, yet it is still able to influence a nation to achieve their desired outcome.

Coercion and Rational Bargaining: Two sides of the same coin?

As our group worked on our interactive presentation regarding coercive power versus rational bargaining, I began thinking more on what exactly constitutes “coercion”. Typically, for an individual or at the state level, it is using some means of power to force someone or some country to do something they otherwise wouldn’t do. In the international realm, it’s typically considered the threat of some type of military force or implementation of trade or economic sanctions.  But after researching and presenting on Amnesty International and seeing the two presentations on the World Bank and the UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), I decided to expand my definition and rethink “power”.

            Amnesty International quite effectively uses the power of shame to achieve it’s goal of universal human rights, thoroughly researching and then publicly releasing the results of that research to identify which states are failing to provide or actively suppress whatever human right is the focus of the campaign.  As I think we demonstrated, Amnesty has successfully used shaming to motivate states to change repressive practices as well as motivate other states to apply pressure to those repressive regimes. Amnesty has no military and controls no economy but it has significant power in the world to change the behavior of nations.

            I watched the presentations dealing with the World Bank and the UNCTAD, which turned out to provide for an interesting comparison. The World Bank, and by extension the United States via its sole veto, have immense economic power. World Bank loans do not come with only an interest rate and a repayment plan. They come with requirements to restructure economies, open markets, privatize state-owned industries and a host of other possibilities the World Bank deems necessary to negate future World Bank intervention. While the World Bank may be rational in its decision-making, the fact that any particular country needs World Bank assistance means it is in a weakened position to negotiate and quite possibly desperate. Can this be a rational bargaining situation if one of the bargaining parties is in such a weakened position? The only real power it has against the World Bank is the power to walk away from negotiations and it probably does that at the risk of economic collapse. The World Bank may well be offering to throw them a rope, but how much can you argue about the terms when you’re about to fall off the cliff?

            I then watched the presentation on the UNCTAD and came to the conclusion it is the epitome of the rational bargaining idea because it has no inherent power. It has to provide rational analysis and serve as a neutral third party because it has to convince other participants on only the strength of its arguments and the analysis underpinning it. Even the provided examples of the UN Security Council's coercive capacity are limited in power because the UNSC has no standing military or banking system. It relies on its more powerful members to man, enforce, fund, and/or provide credibility to the sanctions, no-fly zones, and other tools to enforce its desired policy. If any one of the five veto-holding members decides against a course of action, there is little the remainder of the UNSC or wider assembly can do to impel action. 

            Thinking further, rational bargaining can work between powerful states but only if the one state possesses sufficient means to negate the other side’s power. An example that comes to mind is the SALT and START nuclear treaties signed between the United States and the USSR. The fact that both countries had sufficient nuclear arms to destroy each other multiple times over made it possible for both to rationally bargain to reduce their nuclear holdings while not truly giving up the power of the weapon itself or tilt the balance to one side or the other.  It made rational sense because nuclear weapons are expensive to design, build, and maintain and both sides were apparently confident that the goal of strategic deterrence could be met with fewer weapons. Contrast that with negotiations with nuclear-free states attempting to acquire them and the balance of power shifts and rational bargaining becomes coercive power, even if the threat of nuclear attack is off the table.

            As we delve further into the subject and I’ve done research and seen additional presentations, I’m beginning to think that power by its very nature is coercive and that if one side has power, it can only be overcome by equal applications of power from an opposite direction, the Newtonian physics of international relations forcing rational bargaining.