#1 RW

Would the world be a more peaceful place if everyone spoke the same language? Think here specifically about issues of communication and diplomacy.

            Communication between cultures and nations has and always will be an essential aspect of diplomacy. Diplomats must be able to collectively debate and arrive upon consensus in an orderly fashion to progress worldly discussions. To do so, they must be able to speak with one another. However, there are current means of efficient translation while addressing diplomatic issues. Today, there are between 5,000 and 10,000 abstract languages spoke in the world and diplomacy is currently capable to maintain a certain level of international peace. The dismissal of 9,999 unique languages will most definitely not benefit the world and create a more peaceful international arena. A German diplomat himself, describes that, “language is not only language, it is a way of life.” Each language that subsists in the world today carries individual values, history, culture, and diversity and the textbook “We The People,” portrays that wealth lies within diversity.

Demolishing everything that people know only merited to diversity in languages, would hinder the worldly advancements we enclose today because of collective knowledge gathered in different languages. Sven Scherz-Schade, a theorist of multilingualism, describes dominant world languages, only seen as indispensable because of ease and not because of it’s contribution of cultural value to the world society. He continues to state that, “we know we won’t get very far with one language alone; we need foreign languages.” This is because all have equity, significance and value on a global scale and must be equally represented. The only way to do so is by allowing every diplomat to give explanations with vocabulary they are familiar too and use words in their language, their culture, that may not even exist in another. A single language and exoneration of culture would demean progression we have made in peace treaties today through diplomacy. For example the United Nations in New York, holds diverse objects and scripts from some of the worlds most diverse nations as a symbol of peace. Therefore having a monolingual society would not make our world a more peaceful place.

The single possible benefit of a monolingual society would be fewer miscommunications due to translation errors and the exclusion of language barriers in diplomacy. The riddance of small distinct details lost in translation is not significant enough to make the world a more peaceful place than diversity among languages historically has. The Conflict Resolution Organization claims that miscommunications are not derived from the foreign language itself but from individual perceptions and misapprehension of another culture’s actions. The United Nations presently allows diplomats to converse in peaceful and non-judgmental means. Along with diversity of language inevitably comes diversity in culture enriching our world with ideas of development. Each nation’s individuality presented in their local language, permits constituents to instill pride and sovereignty within their governments. The world may suffer from fewer translation errors in diplomacy but will certainly not be a more peaceful place, than it already is, due to a monolingual society. 

#7 RW

Do powerful countries have any particular obligations towards less powerful countries? How about rich countries in relation to poorer ones?

            Countries with an abundance of power or wealth are obligated to present aid towards less powerful and poorer countries. The act of one nation extending its wealth and influence upon another, promotes several aspects of diplomacy. Such behavior exhibits good international relations between states, encouraging present and future peaceful interactions within multilateral diplomatic means. The provision of aid will contribute to the theory of globalization, which the Eco Justice Education Organization claims will “contribute to the development of global markets and greater efficiencies and profits.” There will be less diversity between failing and thriving economies, causing the world markets to benefit and comply to the majority of its participants. At minimum, the example set forth by the assisting country will be an influential step for spectator nations towards unanimously achieving world peace.  Diplomatic measures are taken in order to steadily advance the world as a whole, to effectively do so all nations are obliged to collaboratively work for the common good; stronger countries providing aid when necessary and capable.

             Effective and efficient world progression is dependent on balancing all aspects of individual nation’s cultures with international nations. Geoffrey Wiseman’s, “Pax Americana: Bumping into Diplomatic Culture,” describes Hedley Bull’s theory explaining the importance of spreading the wealth. “World politics is better seen not as an international system of interacting parts where older is more or less maintained but by the balance of power, international law, war, the great powers, and diplomacy all contribute to order” (Bull 2002:166). Bull’s theory explains that order is maintained primarily through equity of power, treatment, and diplomatic means. While complete Universal equality is farfetched, order and advancement of vulnerable nations is achievable, through contributions of dominantly wealthy and powerful nations. This theory of cohesive living necessitates advanced countries to provide assistance towards struggling nations. 

            Wealthy nations are not obliged by law, command, or force to help progressing countries but morally. The aid must come from a countries conscious effort since requirements are not implemented. Currently, countries of greater gross income aspire to donate .07% of national earnings towards countries in need, according to “Foreign Aid and Development Assistance.” This moral responsibility provides developing nations to receive extra income in order to reciprocate efforts back to global advancement. In conclusion, when struggling countries desire help and another country has the capacity to do so they are morally obliged to act in the advancement of the world as a whole in order to maintain stability and exhibit peace.   

#6 RW

What might it mean to "win" in actual world politics (as opposed to in a board game simulating some aspects of world politics)?

            To win in a board game means to be victorious within reaching, solely, an individual goal before any other participants. This is applicable to Diplomatic Risk, each of the 6 teams had conflicting goals to reach and the first team to reach such goal would have been declared “winner.” Reflecting some aspects of world politics, Risk showed the malicious measures necessary by the Head of State and Diplomat in order to advance their governances towards winning the game. If the class were to have continued playing until one team “won,” diplomacy would have failed because the preponderance of people (the 5 other teams) would have invariably lost.

            If nations truly strive to co-exist peacefully with one-another, winning cannot ultimately subsist in real world politics. In search of a historical reference of one nations triumph over another, it became evident through numerous articles that the only times states “win” in politics have been through violent and costly wars. “Several united nations won World War II against Nazi Germany,”  “The Vietnamese won” the Vietnam War, and to describe winning in an alternate perspective, “The U.S. was the last man standing in the Cold War,” (Discovery News Source.) These malevolent winnings between nations, due to conflicts in world politics are the only forms historically supported. John Hoffman’s article on “Reconstructing Diplomacy,” states that victory obtained through violent and forceful means, causes suppression and always results with a “loser.” Diplomacy is a means of nations effectively communicating with one another disallowing conflicts in world politics. The goal of diplomacy is to peacefully cohabitate and mandate based upon the best outcome for the greatest amount of people. Because diplomatic measures are taken into account while addressing world politics, finding the best possible outcome for the vast majority is the priority. Consequently ones nation’s dominance causing another nations loss, hinders the ultimate goal (winning) of all nations being able to collectively live with one-another in peaceful means.    

            On the other hand, when addressing international affairs it is often necessary to create laws and ruling to ensure domestic tranquility. When precautions and provisions are made the nations involved try to rule based upon the best outcome for the greatest amount of people. However, this is a difficult task and is nearly impossible to take numerous variables of religious beliefs, government values, and personal reactions, into account. Based upon perception, one country may leave a debate, having “won,” simply because they slightly benefited from outcome over the other nations. An example of how issues of world politics are perceived differently based upon numerous values and religious beliefs, between winning and losing, is the current issue of the Iraq War. Supporters of the war claim we are making progression and presently “winning,” however the article “Progression in Iraq Doesn’t Mean We’re Winning the War,” by Bernard Finel of the World Politics Review, states otherwise. Personal opinions of winning make it difficult, in the aspect of war, to define a winner in world politic. While it is possible for nations to benefit in rulings or kill more soldiers in a war, the only way to win in world politics is to govern according to the beneficiary of the greatest amount of people. 

#8 RW

As a diplomat, should you focus on advancing the interests of your home country, or should you focus on getting the best outcome for the world as a whole? What if these two goals conflict -- which should predominate?

            When a diplomat faces an issue that conflicts the interest between their home country and the world as a whole, there is not necessarily one right answer other than the beneficiary of humanity should predominate. If universal advancement relies primarily on the development of a single nation, that issue must be every diplomat’s goal. In contrast, it is possible a specific international goal must be addressed before the ambitions of single nations in order to promote the human race cohesively. It is not a question of what mass of land a diplomat chooses to represent, but what fundamental values, liberties and dignity they wish to protect. Diplomats communicate through the means of the United Nations, which stands for the promotion of “peacekeeping of humanity.” While reading mission statements on the official United Nations website I found a common trend, the use of the word humanity was present in every paragraph. I believe the truth behind diplomacy is not to represent a specific nation, but the people living there in order to co-exist harmoniously. Therefore diplomats should act in ways that distributes the wealth economically, politically, and civilly to the greatest amount of people no matter where they are located, whether locally or in foreign nations. If diplomats acted in such a manner there would be no decision whether to act in the beneficiary of their independent nation or the world as a whole. This is because the two would allocate the same non-conflicting goals creating no decision to make for whom they should act on behalf of. Indeed conflicts are inevitable, however they should be addressed in a manner that strengthens the international economy, relations, welfare, etc. This is because under the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights each individual is declared equal and be able to exhibit certain inalienable fundamental rights. I found numerous articles and reference to defend the importance of promoting humanity including debate over actions in the holocaust, decisions of nuclear power, Israeli troops, and even the 2010 Fifa World Cup. All discuss that actions are necessary to protect humanity and the welfare of the preponderance of constituents. In conclusion, the decision to advance ones nation or the world as a whole should be decided upon simultaneously in the arena of the UN, under peaceful means, in order to best serve and protect the people of the world and humanity as a whole.

When selfish interests prevail within a country and conflict the common good unanimously and a diplomat acts for the selfish advancement of their “home country” a breach of international peace arises. Opposing nations may be set aback due to lack of consideration and through human nature act in malicious, non-diplomatic ways in order to ensure the security of their individual nation. This ripple affect will create a sense of national independence causing states to believe their only means of progression is through self-sufficiency. However, when a diplomat neglects the specific needs of their country and acts for the World as a whole when unstable to do so, the people of their nation suffer the consequences. If individual diplomats were to work solely for their countries single goal, diplomacy would not be able to exist.  This is because diplomacy is only effective when separate parties are willing to efficiently communicate through means of compensation. The only means for this to effectively take place is when diplomats acts for the advancement of humanity and not individual parties because in this case, someone will always compensate certain desires. The only way to “advance” either a specific nation or world is to take the benefit of the common good into account.

             

Question 8

8. As a diplomat, should you focus on advancing the interests of your home country, or should you focus on getting the best outcome for the world as a whole? What if these two goals conflict-which would predominate?

A diplomat should focus on advancing both the interests of their home country and the world. It is a balancing act. You cannot ignore what's occurring in the rest of the world because if you do not address the world-wide issues you could create more problems. At the same time, you need to deal with the problems your own people face on a day to day basis. You need to make sure you provide resources in both areas. In some cases, if you ignore issues taking place in your home country, then it could also affect the rest of the world. For example, if the oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico was not addressed it would not just be a national issue but it could eventually become a global issue, affecting the water in the United States and all over the world. If these two goals conflict, as a diplomat you should worry about taking care of your home country before going and helping more elsewhere. This summer, I went down to New Orleans with my church. While I was down there, I was in areas where Hurricane Katrina hit. It has been five years and we are still trying to recover from this terrible disaster. Schools and homes were destroyed. Before Katrina hit there were 126 schools in New Orleans. To this date, there are only 16 remaining. While it is important for the diplomats to help other countries who have been hit by natural disasters, like the Haitian earthquake, how are we supposed to be able to support other countries if we can't take care of ourselves first?

At the same time there will be problems that will be ongoing in every country; for those circumstances we cannot ignore problems all over the world, even if we may be struggling at home with domestic issues. For example, many Americans deal with unemployment; an issue that is not solved quickly but over time. Just because our country is facing unemployment, we cannot turn our backs on natural disasters in other countries where we may be able to give an immediate emergency assistance.

As a diplomat, to help the "balancing act", a diplomat should split resources between national issues and global issues, adjusting the amount of assistance based on need. A diplomat needs to decide whether the issues going on in the world or in the homeland have an immediate or long term fix.

#3 RW

Should states care about the performance of their national team at a global sporting competition, such as the Olympics or the World Cup? Why or why not?

            In international sporting events, states should exhibit pride and applaud their national teams performance. However, states should not assume superiority over another or allow inferiority to impinge negatively upon international relations. Cheering on ones state has many beneficial factors. The global games present each state with a common goal of winning medals. Such contiguity reinforces community on national and international levels. This community causes states to come together to cheer on their athletes, “altering the international political and economic climate,” according to Deborah P. Low of Pennsylvania University. A communion of diverse people within a single state can cause them to “act” together and create changes in their particular society. Global games cause a community to exist on an international level as well. The communities within each state collaborate with the communities of other states participating in the games, generating a worldwide community bound by common interest.

Each state displays their equality, promised in the preamble of the UN Declaration of Human Rights, with equal opportunities of receiving a medal. Every athlete arrives a representative of their state exactly as diplomats do and from their established communities to acknowledge that “unity, profit, salvation, and preservation of fundamental values,” can exist between nations, as Professor Jackson described in Lecture 3: Community. The games unit and welcome every nation to build relations and communities of the world as a whole instead of individual states. “Global Games: Theories and Applications,” states that the cost of production of the games benefits the majority of nations economies, creating a profit. Cheering on ones state’s team promotes the games which endorses the reasoning as to why we have them to begin with. This newfound community allows participants and citizens to socially converse about global happenings and act together. For example when Hitler attempted to demonstrate his belief of racial supremacy in the 1936 Berlin Olympic Games, by only allowing Aryan athletes to compete. Thousands of communities and athletes came together in boycott of the Olympics to promote higher moral standards and the racial profiling exhibited by the games. The 1936 Olympics allowed culturally diverse citizens to take initiative in newly built communities of common interest to act for what the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights stands for by abolishing the unlawful and wrongdoing by Hitler. Without national pride and the games, relations between those states would not exist. This is only one example of the numerous ways citizens and athletes alike have banded together and built relations based upon actions of the Olympic and World games. In conclusion, states should care about the performance of their individual nations team and athletes in order to instill a sense of national pride while building international relations. 

#5 RW

Think back on our game of Diplomatic Risk. What resources or opportunities would you have needed in order to fulfill your objectives? What difference would those resources or opportunities have made?

            In order to fulfill my personal objective in Diplomatic Risk, I would have needed aid from certain opportunities and resources. I concluded the game with seven states, primarily in North America and two in Asia. My objective was to obtain 10 states at any given time. After I initiated a schism due to religious matters and my conflicting goal from my former Head of State, I began colonizing with five states, one city, and no resources. This situation bestowed me 3 reinforcements per turn causing my armies to grow slowly. Since my goal was to take over foreign territories and expand my religious messages, my meager armies inhibited me from achieving my goal.

            If I were to have another city or resource to contribute one extra army to my territories per turn I wouldn’t have been able to invade quicker to accomplish my objective. The opportunity to invade my ally blue instead of my enemies green and red would have easily allowed me to obtain three more states leading to the completion of my goal. The combination of extra resources and ability to attack blue would have permitted me to push my armies through Iceland, Scandinavia, and Ukraine’s weak armies effortlessly. I should not have wasted a turn in a diplomacy meeting declaring war with green because attacking blue was a much simpler option to reach my specific goal more efficiently. I also should not have been at war with red because I know they have the power of “sabotage” and could have diminished my army in a single turn. These two unnecessary wars caused me to lose excessive amounts of armies per turn that could have otherwise been avoided.

            In conclusion, I believe that this game of diplomatic risk was to simulate the limitations of diplomacy. Each of the six teams had conflicting goals and interests. Each team was indisposed to arrange agreement or compensate one another. This was because we each placed the advancement of our states and governmental systems ahead of the benefit of humanity unanimously; thus, causing several wars and allowing vicious motives to override the importance of living harmoniously with one another as described in the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights.