Vittorio Grilli, Italy’s Minister of Economy and Finance, is interviewed by Dr. Arantza de Areilza, Dean of IE School of International Relations, on European Economic and Monetary Policy.
Written on May 2, 2013 by Ángeles Figueroa-Alcorta in Bachelor in International Relations (BIR), Europe, Master in International Relations (MIR), Political Economy, Video
Vittorio Grilli, Italy’s Minister of Economy and Finance, is interviewed by Dr. Arantza de Areilza, Dean of IE School of International Relations, on European Economic and Monetary Policy.
Written on April 13, 2013 by Ángeles Figueroa-Alcorta in Bachelor in International Relations (BIR), Europe, International Law & Organizations, Master in International Relations (MIR), Political Economy, Video
Written on April 12, 2013 by Ángeles Figueroa-Alcorta in Bachelor in International Relations (BIR), Europe, Master in International Relations (MIR)
March 2013
By Rowan Palmer, Master in International Relations Candidate
After five and a half grueling months of classes and a week of final exams and papers, the MIR trip to Brussels couldn’t have come soon enough, and promised a welcome break from classroom studies, as well as a chance to experience first hand many of the institutions and organizations about which we had been learning.
With the MIR’s focus on the European Union as a model for international organization, our trip was centered around visits to some of the EU’s institutions, as well as to NATO headquarters. After a snowy arrival on the Thursday night, our itinerary began Friday morning with a visit to the European Economic and Social Committee, where we were given two presentations on the Committee’s work and its role within the EU, the second of which, by Charis Xirouchakis, Head of Visits and Publications Unit, involved a spirited discussion and was one of the highlights of the trip. A group dinner that evening provided the perfect lead-in to the weekend, when many students took the opportunity to do a bit of traveling and sightseeing in the area, including trips to Bruges, Ghent, Antwerp, and Amsterdam.
On Monday we spent the day at the European Commission, and had presentations on an assortment of topics, including the EU’s climate change policy, the current sovereign debt crisis, industrial competitiveness, and the External Action Service. On Tuesday we changed gears with a visit to NATO headquarters; the difference between visiting a defense organization and visiting government institutions (as we had so far done on the trip) was immediately evident in the security procedures required to enter the building! Once inside, it was fascinating to gain a number of different perspectives on NATO’s changing role, including those of a policy analyst, a communications specialist, and a member of Spain’s diplomatic representation to the transatlantic alliance. That evening we were hosted by Belgium’s permanent representative to the EU, a man who has the distinction of being the only diplomat posted to an embassy in his own country!
We wrapped up the trip on Wednesday morning by visiting the European Parliament. Here, as was to be expected, things took on a more political tone as we met with several MEPs and had a chance to hear their views on some of the current “hot topics” in European politics. We were then left with time for one final meal out in Brussels, as well as a chance to make any last minute chocolate purchases before catching the airport bus, again amidst snow flurries, for our flight back to Madrid.
Written on April 9, 2013 by Ángeles Figueroa-Alcorta in Americas, Europe, Foreign Policy, International Conflict, Terrorism & Security
Margaret Thatcher: pro-European ‘wet’ transformed by a triumphant war
The hypercautious leader who showered money on the unions was about to get the boot: the Falklands changed all that.
By Simon Jenkins

‘I think on balance Thatcher did for Britain what was needed at the time.’ Illustration by Daniel Pudles
Margaret Thatcher was Britain’s most significant leader since Churchill. In 1979 she inherited a nation that was the “sick man of Europe”, an object of constant transatlantic ridicule. By 1990 it was transformed. She and her successors John Major and Tony Blair presided over a quarter century of unprecedented prosperity. If it ended in disaster, the seeds were only partly hers.
Almost everything said of Thatcher’s early years was untrue, partly through her own invention. She was the daughter of a prosperous civic leader who merely began life as a “grocer”. She went to a fee-paying school and to Oxford at her father’s expense, gliding easily into the upper echelons of student politics.
A Tory party desperate for women helped Thatcher through the political foothills to early success as an MP. Her gender led her into government and the shadow cabinet, despite Edward Heath’s aversion to her. It made her virtually unsackable as education secretary. As she said in her memoirs: “There was no one else.” When Heath fell, her promoters ran her as a stalking horse because, as a woman, they thought she could not win. Thatcher became prime minister because she was a woman, not despite it.
As leader she was initially hyper-cautious. An unclubbable outsider, she allied herself to another outsider, Keith Joseph, and his free-market set. But she regarded rightwing causes as an intellectual hobby. She was an ardent pro-European, and her 1979 manifesto made no mention of radical union reform or privatisation. It was thoroughly “wet”. On taking office she showered money on public sector unions, and her “cuts” were only to planned increases, mild compared with today’s. Yet by the autumn of 1981 they had made her so unpopular that bets were being taken at the October party conference that she would be “gone by Christmas”.
What saved Thatcher’s bacon, and revolutionised her leadership, was Labour’s unelectable Michael Foot – and the Falklands war. Whatever Tory historians like to claim, this was the critical turning point. By delivering a crisp, emphatic victory Thatcher showed the world, and more important herself, what a talent for solitary command could achieve. From then on she disregarded her critics and became intolerant of any who were “not one of us”. Read more…
As published in www.guardian.co.uk on April 8, 2013.
Written on April 8, 2013 by Ángeles Figueroa-Alcorta in Europe, Foreign Policy, International Conflict, Terrorism & Security, Political Economy
By Daniel W. Drezner
Margaret Thatcher has passed away. I could try to talk about Thatcher’s place as a world historical figure, but let’s face it, there’s going to be an orgy of columns on that very point over the next week or so — anything I write on the topic would be second rate at best. I could write about my own memories of living in London during the late Thatcher era, but to be honest, that’s not terribly interesting — it’s a tale of fading political popularity and really strident left-wing art.
So, instead, consider the following two ways in which Thatcher has left a legacy in international relations theory:
1) Diversionary war. There’s a large literature in international relations on the notion of using war against a foreign adversary as a way to distract domestic opposition and/or bolster domestic support for a leader (see Chiozza and Goemans for the latest iteration of this literature). It’s a little-known fact, but International Studies Association rules prohibit any paper on this topic from being published without a Thatcher reference.
I kid, but only barely. The Falklands War represents the paradigmatic case of diversionary war theory for two reasons. First, almost every analysis of the conflicts attributes the Argentine junta’s growing domestic unpopularity as a key cause of their decision to launch the conflict (though, of course, it’s a bit more complicated than that). Second and more importantly, absent the Falklands War, Margaret Thatcher would be remembered as a failed one-term prime minister. Victory over the Argentines in the South Atlantic enabled Thatcher to win re-election.
In truth, it’s far from clear that diversionary war is all that common a practice (if it was, we’d be drowning in conflicts since 2008). The Falklands War, however, does provide the paradigmatic case.
2) The spread of ideas. It’s fitting that the New York Times ran a story over the weekend about the boomlet in history about studying the growth of capitalism. Thatcher’s role in advancing the spread of free-market ideas to other policymakers was crucial. To explain why free-market capitalism became the pre-eminent idea in economic policymaking over the past few decades, you have to look at Thatcher. She preceded Reagan, becoming the first leader in the developed world to try to change her country’s variety of capitalism. Even after Reagan came to power, one could persuasively argue that Thatcher mattered more. As some international political economy scholars have noted, ideas and policies spread much faster when “supporter states” embrace them vigorously rather than reluctantly. Thatcher embraced capitalism with a near-religious fervor, acting as a vanguard for the rest of Europe on this front. For more on the role that Thatcher and her advisors played, see Yergin and Stanislaw’s The Commanding Heights, or Jeffry Frieden’s Global Capitalism. Read more…
Daniel W. Drezner is professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University.
As published in www.foreignpolicy.com on April 8, 2013.