#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 In search of a historical reference of one nations triumph over another, it became evident through numerous articles that the only times states “win” in politics have been through violent and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. 

#4 RW

Are there issues in world politics that cannot, even in principle, be resolved through diplomatic means? In other words, are there limits to diplomacy?

            There are issues in world politics that are not viable to be resolved through the means of diplomacy, which inevitably causes limits to diplomatic means. A political issue is derived from a disagreement or dispute between two or more parties. In a worldly scale this is a discrepancy or conflict of interest between two or more states. For such political issue to be resolved through diplomatic means, both parties must be willing to initiate change or compensate one another. In a perfect union, diplomacy would thrive and would have no limits. Meaning, at least one or more states is disposed to change their ways or policies in order to co-exist peacefully with one-another. However, diplomatic means in world politics today has limitations and does not work flawlessly in an idealistic fashion. The Journal of European Public Policy journalist, Jozef Batora, defines diplomacy as “the process of dialogue and negotiation by which states in a system conduct their relations and pursue their purposes by means short of war.” This excerpt claims that perfect diplomatic measures exclude war as a resolution to conflicts in world politics. If there were no limitation to diplomacy, war would not exist because conflicts would be resolved through peaceful and diplomatic means. However, war subsists internationally today, therefore there are issues that diplomatic means cannot amend. This limitation of diplomacy is due to conflicts of interest between states and their inability to peacefully compensate one-another.

An example of limited diplomacy in history was the reign of Adolph Hitler. Two parties had such abstract inhibitions and goals that neither could come to a diplomatic agreement causing sadistic measure necessary for the benefit of the common welfare. When the wellbeing of the preponderance is at risk, diplomacy is limited because time and efforts may be limited as well. An example of present-day limited diplomacy according to John Judis of Carnegie Endowment for International Peace is the war in Iraq over oil. The article “Determining Factor: Oil And U.S. Diplomacy” describes failure in diplomatic means. The United States desires oil and Iraq is unwilling to impart. This conflict of interest and unsuccessful diplomatic compensation caused the United States to reside to unmerciful measures to obtain oil. Due to an imperfect society and human nature there are limitations to diplomatic means inevitably leading to issues that cannot be resolved through diplomacy. 

Question 5

5. 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?

Looking back at our game of Diplomatic Risk, my objective was to "carry out a peacekeeping mission" by taking over the country of Ukraine and to do so with the World Council sanction. My obvious resources were my armies. I had the most armies out of everyone else. This allowed me to have a sort of global dominance. Also, another key resource was my secret power. By using my secret power I was able to take any three armies and place them in a single territory of my control. One opportunity I needed was to make allies with countries who would vote to give me the world sanction. This was easy because one group's objective was to become allies with the most countries. I would also need to declare war with and not be neutral or be allies with whoever controlled Ukraine. During our game of Diplomatic Risk, there was a situation where I received world sanction and I was at war with the country controlling Ukraine but because I misunderstood my mission, I gave up the perfect opportunity to win. From this experience, I learned that one must completely understand what the mission is and to take advantage of every opportunity presented.

Question 4

4. Are there issues in world politics that cannot, even in principle, be resolved through diplomatic means? In other words, are there limits to diplomacy?

According to Webster's Dictionary, diplomacy is: "the art and practice of conducting negotiations between nations." Theoretically one should have the ability to solve any conflict with diplomacy; the key is doing it peacefully. Some of the great leaders of the world were able to bring about great "negotiations" and change without war or violence. Examples of these leaders include Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, and Martin Luther King Jr. But for these leaders it also took a great deal of time, patience, and sacrifice. Many not only sacrificed their time but they also sacrificed their own lives because others wouldn't be accepting of the change. You can resolve issues of world politics through diplomatic means but you need to have patience. If it were easy, then all issues would be solved through diplomacy. People sometimes need to decide what's worth dying for and what they are willing to tolerate. All issues in world politics have the potential of being resolved through diplomatic means. Right now in Afghanistan, there is a real fear that the progress made in promoting education and women's rights will be sacrificed in the interest of forming an alliance to battle the war on terror. In the past, the U.S. befriended Iraq despite the genocide of the Kurds by means of chemical warfare because of involvement in war with Iran. Sometimes two different issues are being considered at the same time and countries choose to "look the other way" in order to achieve a different interest.

Question 7

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

Through Diplomatic Representation, larger or wealthier countries are morally obligated to help less powerful or poor ones. When they offer assistance, however, they have to be careful about what they say and how they say it. The wealthier and more powerful countries need to offer a hand up versus a hand out. Doing so offers long term solutions and allows the country receiving assistance to maintain its dignity.

For example, looking at the genocide occurring in Darfur, some of the conflict originated with fertile land and access to water and the government turning over control to the vigilante groups to be the enforcers of the law. Other countries can get involved in various ways. Organizations can provide education on crop development and seed money to start farms so countries have sufficient food and resources to feed themselves. One such organization is the Heifer project, which purchases animals that can be bred to provide food to outlying villages. Traditional education is also important. Schools set up through organizations such as the Peace Corp, allow countries to develop an educated population who can later have the skills to promote essential skills such as literacy. The Peace Corp also goes into underdeveloped areas to install sewer and drainage systems, which ultimately reduce the amount of illness in an area. Groups like Doctors Without Borders can bring essential medical care to areas that otherwise would have none. Simple supplies like mosquito nets can reduce the number of deaths in an area resulting from mosquito borne illnesses like malaria. Education can also prevent the spread of communicable diseases such as AIDS. Groups like CARE provide temporary housing until new homes can be constructed. Construction can be another essential means of employment to promote independence by teaching marketable skills. Countries can also provide military protection to prevent the targeted attack of one particular group, while peaceful negotiations transpire to resolve conflicts. Neighboring nations can also provide a safe haven, as Chad has done.

With the genocide occurring in Darfur, people need to not just give a temporary fix now; they need to think long term and help the country of Sudan in becoming a more self-sufficient country. Another way I think powerful countries can help less powerful countries is through the Barter System. Through the Barter System each country would be able to profit, making the more needy country feel like it can become independent in meeting its needs. If the smaller countries do not want the help from the government of the larger countries then NGOs at least of the larger countries should try to step in to help.

Countries that were considered third world a short time ago are becoming more powerful. If the countries that currently hold the greatest power positions don't help struggling governments when they need help, how can they expect assistance from the new nations in power when help is needed? From an alliance standpoint, helping less fortunate countries can build alliances to maintain positions of power; the countries currently gaining more power also benefit through these alliances because their growth is supported.

Location is also very important. For example, if countries like the United States don't help a country like Pakistan, surrounded by enemies of the U.S., such as Afghanistan and Iran, it could be taken over by a country that's our enemy and geographically place our enemy in a position to do more harm against us. Also, from a moral obligation, how can countries stand by and watch people starve for food and kill each other over basic human needs? It's just not morally right.

Question 6

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

During our game of Diplomatic Risk, each person had a different mission to "win". Many were to take over a certain country or region. I don't think that any country can actually "win" in world politics but I think it can grow and advance. In an ideal community, each community would fulfill its social purpose,, "what we want" as a whole. The community would have shared values and ideals and act together. But even if we could get the "ideal community" or Utopian Society, there would always be the outside factors such as poverty, disease, or global climate change that cause problems. Some of these issues could be eliminated, but as demonstrated in the book The Giver, these issues cannot be eliminated without giving up choice and some democratic values. When it comes to "winning" with a stable economic system, the Barter System would be the best system to use. Even with the Barter System in place, each country needs currency, a tempting, more convenient way of business. Also, not all countries may be "winning" countries, which may cause the citizens of "non-winning" countries to try to flee to other nations. Such change would then cause a rapid flow of illegal immigrants and trade, taking away from the "winning" economy. As far as trade, not everybody has the same value of items to exchange which would lead to an eventual Caste System where the rich stay wealthy and the poor stay poor and there is no growth. No matter how hard one country tries to "win", it may advance in some areas, but new problems will always exist.

Question 2

2. Short of war, how might a state and its authorized diplomatic representatives work to achieve some broadly desirable goal, like the promotion of human rights or democracy?

Short of war, a state and its authorized diplomatic representatives can work to achieve some broadly desirable goal, like the promotion of human rights or democracy by working together as a community and with one's allies and enemies.

Diplomatic Representatives have to present the global community, "what they want" and they must also represent what their community as a whole believes, "what we want". In order to determine "what we want", the state needs to address that it will fulfill its social purpose of survival and welfare of its citizens. The state must also address the possibilities of a peaceful coexistence between other states/nations from using this alternative solution. One example of an alternative solution would be the Barter System. In the Barter System, each state gets something they want; they exchange by giving and receiving. A state may use this system with both its allies and enemies. This system was greatly used during our game of Risk. If one country had something another country didn't have, they would either go to or try to become allies with that country and then use the Barter System to help each other benefit in some way.

A country could also increase trade with another country that agrees to support a goal, like the promotion of human rights or democracy, by promoting the issues through trade. While increasing trade with countries who promote these goals, the country should decrease or boycott its trade with countries who either oppose these goals or take actions that deny these principles. This type of financial pressure is one of the most effective ways to gain support and achieve some broadly desirable goal.

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 wh

My first flight was to Antalya (a city in southern Turkey) and I’ve been flying since then. Now I don’t know when the safety information announcement things started to make sense for me but there’s one thing I know for sure about those: Your own safety comes first. You first put on your oxygen mask and then you help your child or whoever else is in need. I believe the same applies for the home country- world conflict. In the case of the necessity for choosing between the two I would’ve chosen my country.

Just because I would choose the country where I was born over the world in general might suggest that I’m being selfish and do not really care about the others (other people and other countries) but this is not a correct allegation. Homo sapiens are multifunctioning creatures with intricate-working minds (alright, maybe except some) and these characteristics enable them to value a vast number of things at the same time- I try to do that. In my humble opinion no person or no country can leap up and be the best without a supportive or at least steady environment. Therefore it is virtually impossible for any country to invest only for the advancement of itself and face no problems. Take Germany during the last economic recession in 2008, for example. It has the European Union’s largest economy and in the beginning it seemed that Germany would not have to deal with momentous problems caused by economy- its economy is the third strongest in the world. However when its trade buddies (such as Belgium) failed to supply Germany’s demands in the market because of the problems in their own countries, Germany hit the wall of desperation with them. Mutual support is fundamental in world politics, otherwise “The moist pieces of wood will burn along with the dry ones, too,” as a Turkish proverb puts it. My own country’s priorities come first, but this does not mean that I will not work hard for the better of this world that we are living in.

What might it mean to “win” in actual world politics?

It is obvious that a country cannot possibly be the best in the world in every single way. Realistically thinking, since there is no absolute right or wrong in politics, it is very challenging to determine which side is the superior one. Countries can be “winners” even when their situations are exactly the opposite, and this shows us how complex things can get in politics. I reckon a country can be considered a “winner” in two situations: if its citizens are living in prosperity and the country has no significant problems with other countries; or if the country has accomplished its goals. Here are two examples for each type of “winning countries” and I’ll make my conclusion in the end.
Denmark is one of the perfect examples for the first type of winner described above. Its citizens live in wealth, a strong governance system has been established and is working out quite well, and the county is not in a noteworthy political or military-wise fight. However, just because Denmark is currently one of the politically stable and neutral countries does not mean that it has been like this since the establishment of the state. It has done so much during the Second World War to protect its Jewish population and it has been a difficult period for the government but in the end an equal and safe environment has been created for all the citizens. And this indeed does make Denmark a “winner.”
Although majority might argue the opposite, Sudan is another “winner” for me. Yes, the citizens are not living in healthy conditions, let alone wealth. An incredibly serious crime is committed in Darfur hence an ICC arrest warrant was issued in 2008 for the president, Omar al-Bashir. No country in the AU turns him in to the ICC, not even European countries- in fact he has been to Denmark for a conference on climate change and he returned to his country without having any difficulties caused by the arrest warrant. Consequently, he continued to live his life as the president of Sudan. It is true that what al-Bashir is doing by avoiding the ICC trial is not legal at all, but it is also true that he (therefore Sudan) has successfully accomplished his task which was keeping away from the trial. It is illegitimate but it does not change the fact that Sudan is the “winner” since it is the one who has “fooled” the other side, if I may.
As it can be seen, the case of Denmark and Sudan are the two opposite poles and yet, they’re both winners. Denmark is a winner because it maintains security in the country, respects human rights and is an ideal social government and on the other hand Sudan is a winner as well, simply because it has completed its aims, no matter how unusual it might seem. “...complexities and problems of the real world of international relations” are always present, suggests Paul Wilkinson in his book A Short Introduction: International Relations. I couldn’t agree more since I come to the conclusion that even absolutely different countries can be considered “winners.”

6-NN

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

Winning means to be victorious in a contest or conflict. In world politics there is no real end or conclusion to claim a winner. In RISK the completion of our objective resulted in a win. In world politics it is more the ‘winning’ of small aspects or mini battles to achieve some greater goal. It could be conquering one country after another to acquire an empire or create relations to acquire a natural resource. There are many ways to play the game of world politics and many players who play in different ways. Players can come to agreeable compromises or use force and violence.

Through out history ‘winning’ meant world dominance and in the future some may continue to think that. When playing the game of world politics every player has their own objective as in our game of RISK. They go about achieving their goals through war or alliances. In our game of RISK individual’s objectives were different, some involved acquiring territory, resources or allies. In a game winning is not everything however in world politics winning can be the difference of being free and conquered or having a resource and not.

-Natalie Nishi

3-NN

3. Should states care about the performance of their national team at a global sporting competition?

Countries should care how their teams perform at global sporting competitions. I believe sport competitions on a personal level can show leadership and teamwork but on a global level it could show a country’s dominance or unification. A sense of nationalism comes out of winning at the Olympics or other worldwide competitions. Winning numerous medals at the Olympics can send an indirect message of dominance. As in the Olympics during the Cold War Russia and USA fought indirectly through sports. Winning brings the sense of unity. A nation can come together to cheer on their players. In a time of struggle a win could strengthen the ties of the nation to better it.

Some people may believe that sporting events at the global level should keep the politics of the countries off the field. This is extremely hard to accomplish because when ever two different countries meet whether it is on or off the field politics will surface. Sports are an indirect way for countries to succeed in claiming dominance or uniting their nation.

-Natalie Nishi

1-NN

1. Would the world be a more peaceful place if everyone spoke the same language?

I believe that an universal language could help create peace. If the world spoke the same language then the language barrier could be nonexistent and there would be a connecting factor between countries. These together are the base of peace but even with out a language barrier different parts of the world will still think differently. Even with a connection different countries have different customs and views. Having one language would make communicating easier but it would not be the sure way to achieve peace.

Having a universal language could lower the amount of wars by lowering the miscommunication however with the same language the views of the countries would not have changed. As a global community we have many differences that enrich our cultures and can create conflict with others. Having the same language may not change that. Though it would help one country to understand another. Conflict rises from misunderstanding having an universal language may reduce the misunderstanding but it may not be able to change the conflicting cultures of countries.

-Natalie Nishi

3. 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

Yes they should. A lot of the countries, regardless of the size of their population, have already been investing a considerably large amount of money on their national teams for a long time now. Take the world-famous American swimmer Michael Phelps, for instance. Every single move he makes is observed and analyzed by a number of trainers, along with various high-tech equipments. Considering the fact that Phelps is a national swimmer therefore all his swimming-related expenses are covered by the government of the USA, it should not be too difficult for one to understand how much a government can value its sportsman. This isn't for nothing- the govenments are aware of the fact that a nation that is closer together is a stronger one.

Although I cannot come up with an example from real life, I see no reason why I can’t show the inspirational movie ‘Invictus’ which is a true story as a proof on how beneficially it has worked for the governments to support their national teams. In the movie, Nelson Mandela joins his forces with its national rugby team’s captain François in order to bring the people of South Africa together. They succeed and South Africa not only wins the Rugby World Cup Championship in 1995, but it also is a more united country with its people closer to each other now.

The global language of sports can indeed be a major factor in the creation and strengthening of the national consciousness. If people realize that they can communicate through sports, they will continue to do so and this will eventually diminish some concepts that were previously the cause of the creation of bountaries. A more comfortable environment and a stronger stance against 'others' will be created since the citizens will have a common point. The governments should continue to value its national teams in order to create a more peaceful environment in the country and encourage communication between its citizens.

#6

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

The “winner” of something is usually the person or group that comes out on top at the conclusion of an event. Whether it be a dance-off, debate, or reality show, the winner is always better than the rest by the end of the “contest”. However, since there is no end to world politics, a “winner” cannot exist. Of course there have been countless wins and losses between countries over the course of history, most commonly found in the form of violence, but a single country cannot possibly become the “winner” of world politics. Therefore, the game of RISK that was played in class was a good representation; every country had its own goals and purposes that it tried to achieve. Countries today do the same, and they probably think pursuing these goals would perhaps lead towards victory, but the real path is endless. For instance, the struggle for global power is always present; conceivably, many countries may think world domination is the ultimate “win”. Mary Rosenblum demonstrates this desire for power in Horizons: “It was important now to press the advantage, and quite possibly to reduce the NAA’s standing in world politics for years to come.” Acquiring the “most” of anything—resources, power, land—may be considered to be a “win”, but even if a country accomplishes the feat, world politics is ever-changing, and the win won’t last.

Instead of each individual country trying to pursue its personal interests and “win”, countries should be willing to allow themselves to “tie”. If the planet was held up in a global “tie” in world politics, then that would more or less mean the achievement of universal equality, and possibly even peace. World politics should not be a race, but instead should be a challenge that countries work together to face and overcome. In terms of wins and losses, in the words of John Hoffman’s article Reconstructing Diplomacy, “it is widely accepted even by statist writers on diplomacy, that the resort to force represents a defeat for diplomacy.” In the eyes of many people, countries consistently involved in violence are actually the “losers” of world politics, regardless of how many battles are won. Hoffman also nicely states, “Force necessarily involves the victory of some and the defeat of others. Hence it is incapable of resolving conflict since when force is used, some of the parties to the dispute will have been suppressed, and they (or their surviving mates) will seek revenge!” The cycle is endless, so states should be willing to give up certain personal interests in exchange for global equality.

Realistically, however, many countries, especially the powerful ones today, are not willing to help distant nations at the price of a lower domestic living standard. Therefore, if a winner must exist, then the race to become the top dog should not involve arms or military power in any way. The true race, especially with today’s global problems, should be of technology, innovations, and effective problem-solving methods. Countries should be competing to solve global crises; doing so would give them worldwide recognition. A nation that is capable of acquiring global recognition and respect comes as close as possible to being crowned the “champion” of world politics.

#4

Are there issues in world politics that cannot, even in principle, be resolved through diplomatic means? In other words, are there limits to diplomacy?

In a Utopian world, every issue in which humans have control can be resolved through diplomatic means. Thus, “in principle”, it is in fact possible to do so in our modern world. Ideally, an issue would arise, diplomats and states would converse and negotiate about it for a period of time, and in the end both would come to an understanding where a peaceful resolution would be reached. However, this peaceful, seemingly simple form of diplomacy is rarely seen today. In his article Pax Americana: Bumping into Diplomatic Culture, Geoff Wiseman defines diplomatic culture as “the accumulated communicative and representational norms, rules, and institutions devised to improve relations and avoid war between interacting and mutually recognizing political entities.” Thus, ideal diplomacy should be nonviolent, but obstacles and complications come into play, making some issues seemingly impossible to solve. Religion and beliefs are prime sources of worldwide dispute and violence. Notable examples include Al Qaeda, the Islamist terrorist group, and the Ku Klux Klan, who performed brutal, racist acts. Negotiating with extremist groups such as these is next to impossible, and peaceful diplomacy is often given up. Countries turn to their last resort: matching violence with violence.

Power also greatly limits diplomacy’s ability to solve issues. The interference of the desire for power is the most straightforward; quite often countries want what benefits themselves the most, disregarding what is actually more important for the global community. Mary Rosenblum’s novel Horizons is can be seen as a battle for power between several different parties. In a world where same-sex couples are universally accepted and religious tolerance is at a much more advanced level than it is at today, the struggle for power had not matured at all. The desire even coursed through individuals; when Ahni couldn’t comprehend her mother’s actions, Tania explained: “’She gave up power, Ahni…do you really think artistic success would outweigh loss of her power?’” (77). Violence and chaos ensued, illustrating what occurs all too often in today’s world when countries only think for themselves. Even small countries are affected by power’s drive; they make diplomatic decisions based on what they believe would best protect themselves. James Wallihan gives an example of this in Negotiation to Avoid Agreement: “…Israel and Arab states entered negotiations in which none of them reportedly wanted to participate. They attended in order to avoid antagonizing the United States.” Thus, each country’s individual interest in power limits diplomacy to a great degree.

Aside from the limits that stem from beliefs or human “vices”, true limits to democracy do exist. These issues are those that are completely out of man’s control, including environmental challenges and the development of complex, contagious diseases. Humans, as much as they try, cannot stop an earthquake from occurring or a volcano from erupting; the most that is within our ability is to work for prevention. Global warming is already causing potentially devastating climate changes. Diplomacy cannot stop the catastrophes from happening, but it can work to improve the environmental conditions. It is possible that once humans have “saved” the environmental crisis, then the frequency of natural disasters would lessen. However, it is also possible that once humans have caused enough damage, there is no turning back, and diplomacy would never be able to solve the issue. The same goes for contagious diseases. Attention has recently been brought to a new strain of bacteria that resists all forms of antibiotics and allows other sicknesses to do the same; if the bacteria was to develop into a global epidemic, then diplomacy would not be able to “solve” the issue until a medical solution is discovered. Environment and medicine are great aspects of world politics, but there is very little that diplomacy can do to resolve those issues. However, concerning the matters that stem from human interaction, diplomacy could technically resolve all of them, but only when people manage to get past the immense obstructions in the way that they built themselves.

#3

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?

Cheering for one’s home country in an international sporting event has multiple benefits on both the domestic and international scales. The fervor that transpires when global sporting events take place is of an unbelievable magnitude. For instance, during the World Cup, entire towns and cities all over the planet empty out onto streets to watch their countries’ games on enormous screens set up just for the occasion. The amount of pride and spirit that citizens feel for their country is incredible; global sporting events renew love for one’s nation. The sports are capable of reuniting a country and bringing attention back to every nation’s individual identity and culture. Each country brings attention to aspects that make their culture unique, and fans present at the sporting events cover themselves with their respective national colors and flags. The extreme national spirit and care that people is a reminder of the extraordinary diversity that exists in the world. Maintenance of unique cultures and traditions is important, and global sporting competitions are great outlets for states to proudly demonstrate their individuality.

As an international event, it is only natural that global sporting competitions also play a strong role in politics. To a certain extent, it is possible that these major events may serve as a minor distraction from violent politics, refocusing a bit of attention on healthy competition instead. However, even more importantly, global sporting events are a chance for countries or individuals to voice their opinions on global happenings. For instance, in the 1936 Berlin Games, Hitler only allowed “Aryan” athletes to compete in his attempt to demonstrate racial superiority. However, Jesse Owens, an African American who won four gold medals, crushed Hitler’s objective. That year, several athletes also chose not to compete, showing what they thought of Germany’s actions. Thus, not only should states care about the performance of their athletes, but whether or not they even participate in the first place. Six countries boycotted the Melbourne games in 1956 because of the Suez War, and the U.S. led a boycott of the 1980 games in Moscow because the Soviet Union had invaded Afghanistan. With a much greater concentration of public attention focused on the sporting events than is normally focused on world politics, international sporting competitions are an excellent way for states to show the world what they believe in.

On a different note, states should not care for the global sporting competitions solely to demonstrate power and prestige. The Olympics are an international competition, but racking up the most golds and winning the Medals Race should not be a country’s only focus. Doing so would alter the tone of the “sporting games” to that of a fierce, non-violent war, which entirely opposes the games’ purpose of uniting the world. Each country should respect the athletic strengths of others; the games present an opportunity for lesser countries to shine and earn a bit of global acclaim. Usain Bolt and other sprinters all gained some esteem for their home country, Jamaica, and Ghana recently defeated the U.S.A. in the 2010 World Cup. All in all, countries should definitely care for the performance of their national team because of the spirit that is generated, but the care should not evolve into an overly fierce competitiveness.

#9

Rosenblum notes on p. 245 of the paperback edition: "The only way to keep them [the space-residing humans, who are phenotypically different even though they are genetically the same] safe is to be separate. A nation with the power to protect its own." Hence, sovereignty protects difference, in this way of thinking about things. Do you agree?

Sovereignty does not protect differences; differences are challenges that may be overcome. The history of the United States of America is solid proof. The U.S.A. was originally known as the “melting pot” of the world; it was a place where cultures of the world came together. Consequently, people of countless religions, races, and beliefs all converged. It is true that the U.S. went through many rough times that stemmed from prejudiced hate, but over the course of a few centuries the States have evolved into what they are today. A black president now leads a country once torn by slavery. Hate crimes and prejudices still exist, but they are publically shunned. The acceptance of all cultures and differences in America is proof that differences are capable of coalescing in a single community.

In Horizons, the severe change of appearance in the new generations of humans is merely a new “difference” that humanity had never previously encountered. The new, changed generations also noticed that ‘normal’ humans “smell[ed] wrong, mov[ed] wrong…don’t seem like them. Body language, facial expressions, body odor…[they’re] different” (158). This shows that the automatic reaction of humans towards foreign concepts is hostility; we repel what we don’t recognize or understand. However, the initial encounter always sparks the most extreme reactions. If humans don’t immediately set up a wall of separation (or push for sovereignty), but instead give themselves time to adjust to the new ideas, then peace is a very possible prospect. According to Kim Hakjoon in The Process Leading to the Establishment of Diplomatic Relations Between South Korea and the Soviet Union, “factors that influenced Soviet perceptions of South Korea included ‘the success of the Seoul Olympics, the democratization of South Korean Society…” The point is, the Soviet Union wanted peace, so it looked past the differences and towards the similarities. With our modern intellect, humans today should be able to do the same, if not more easily. Being able to unite despite differences plays a vital role for the future of our world.

Some might think the process of acceptance takes much too long; humans would have to go through several generations in order for the differences to become easily overlooked. To them, the wait would not be worth the harm and chaos that would inevitably be involved. However, a fast union between those with differences is entirely possible. For example, the presence of danger would expedite the process. In Horizons, despite the differences of all the residents on Earth, “the threat of hostility originating from orbit has brought the rest of the world together” (170). If true aliens from a separate planet were actually to invade Rosenblum’s world at that time, humans would identify a new threat, and NYUp would most likely unite with the mainland to face the intruders. With danger as a distraction, differences are forgotten. Hopefully the future won’t need a distraction to be able to accept those with dissimilarities. Thus, sovereignty does not protect difference; if anything, the separation only heightens levels of hostility and emphasizes the difference in question.

Question #1

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


Every day, millions of people tune into television talk shows to watch others try to resolve communication issues. People often have a difficult time getting along, even if they speak the same language. Imagine how these conflicts grow exponentially when a language barrier is added to the equation. The world would indeed be a more peaceful place if everyone spoke the same language, but there must be some very important conditions to follow. First, like the debated "Esperanto" language, the universal language would exist solely as a second language for all nations. This way, countries may preserve their diversity and cultural uniqueness associated with their languages of origin while working to dissolve the barriers that currently exist by uniting the world with one shared language. This second language would be very useful in communication between different countries and may prevent international misunderstandings stemming from the lack of a shared language for communication. By preventing these misunderstandings, enemies and wars may be prevented. But, communication is not just speaking. Yes, it would be helpful under one language to communicate but one universal language does not take away from the physical aspects of communication such as hand motions and body language. In countries such as the United States of America, a firm hand shake and direct eye contact are appropriate behaviors to greet a stranger whom you've just met. But in some Asian countries, these same gestures could be taken as offensive or aggressive, perhaps even causing a fight. In some European countries, people greet one another with kisses on the cheek; in some countries that may be taken as behaving in too forward a manner. Other problems exist as well. For example, literal translations of colloquial phrases are lost in translation. Also, some countries have many words for one word in other languages. For example, in English, we use the word love to mean many different things. In the Greek language, there are many different words to express those different types of love. Despite these challenges, a neutral universal language would still be advantageous. It would offer a vehicle for individuals from different countries and cultures to teach one another about each other's cultures and values, thereby building a greater understanding among countries around the world. The more we can understand, respect and appreciate each other, the greater likelihood for universal peace.

#7

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

If global equality and world peace are real goals, then it is obligatory for the powerful and rich countries to help out those less fortunate. The powerful countries are well endowed with everything the poor lack; they have an abundance of technology, resources, and wealth, much of which goes to waste. Many poor countries have nothing. Citizens of wealthy countries need to realize that they have done nothing to earn their good fortune, and that those born into poverty have done nothing to deserve their hardship. If everyone clearly understood and empathized with those less fortunate, the race for individual and national power would hopefully cease, and the necessary aid for countries in need would commence.

Impoverished countries lack everything that spans across the spectrum of basic needs. Rich, powerful countries could easily provide aid by simply sending money; as Jeffrey Senger pointed out in Tales of the Bazaar: Interest-Based Negotiation Across Cultures, “The least [a country could] do…was to share [its] good fortune by giving something that meant so little to [them], and yet so much to [the poor state].” A relatively small amount of money can work wonders in the destitute areas. The poor need help to even have a chance at a brighter future; without the aid of the powerful, their situation will only further deteriorate.

The aid given to countries must be nonviolent and selfless. Geoff Wiseman uses the “war” in Iraq to explore the role of diplomatic culture in Pax Americana: Bumping into Diplomatic Culture. He states that the Iraq war originally “would deploy US military might to dislodge dictators with links to terrorists, find and destroy illegal WMD, and promote democracy in such nettlesome regions as the Middle East.” America sent troops into a less powerful country, believing it was executing great deeds to benefit Iraq. However, America’s military intervention lead to thousands of deaths on both sides, and seven years later when the withdrawal of troops begins, nothing substantial appears to be achieved. The mere presence of armed forces creates a negative environment of fear and animosity; “helping” a country in that manner is extremely ineffective, if not harmful.

Some people may believe that less powerful countries have their own pride; they want to work out the problems themselves. However, this is usually not the case, and if so, it is foolish. In Mary Rosenblum’s novel Horizons, Sri Lanka asked for China to vote with them: “If I fling pig dung in the NAA’s eye, I do not wish to do so alone!” (172). Even in her futuristic world, weaker countries seek the protection and aid of those more powerful. If powerful countries quit trying to gain more of what they already have an excess of and started truly selflessly assisting those in need, the country would undoubtedly gain worldwide respect, as well as simultaneously setting an example for others. Therefore, powerful countries should feel obligated to help those impoverished. Doing so would refocus global attention from futile competitive issues to more worldly topics that matter.

#2

Short of war, how might a state and its authorized diplomatic representatives work to achieve some broadly desirable goal, like the promotion of human rights or democracy?

It is puzzling how often states resolve to war when there are nonviolent methods available to resolve conflict and achieve goals. First of all, war has countless more negative consequences than positive. The present “wars” in Iraq and Afghanistan are proof: there have been about 4732 Iraq coalition military fatalities, and 1993 Afghanistan coalition military fatalities. This does not include the countless innocent civilian losses. Suicide rates have recently been shooting up, and to date over $1.09 trillion has been spent on these two wars. What have we gained? Many Americans don’t even understand the purpose of American troops’ presence in the two foreign countries in the first place. Not only does war cause physical and monetary losses, but causes losses in morality as well. In Mary Rosenblum’s Horizons, the media constantly “capitaliz[ed] on the sensationalism of a minor incident or two” (169), twisting the truth to villanize the opposing side. This act is not uncommon in our current world. War spawns hatred, despair, and prejudices; better ways to achieve goals must exist.

Kim Hakjoon’s article, The Process Leading to the Establishment of Diplomatic Relations Between South Korea and the Soviet Union, is an excellent example of states achieving goals by recognizing and accepting differences. Gorbachev’s ‘new thinking’ “proceeds from recognizing mutual dependence on the countries of the world and the priority of common human goals the utmost being a survival of humanity over class, national, religious, and other interests.” According to Hakjoon, the Soviet leaders thought diplomatic solutions were much more attractive than military force. They “seemed intent on pursuing a policy of resolving important problems in East Asia realistically on an anti-ideological and pragmatic level.” As a result, the Soviet Union eventually made peace with South Korea, overcoming strong hostility. The peace between the two countries is proof that diplomatic goals may be achieved sans bloodshed, as long as states are open-minded, accepting, and willing to negotiate.

In most cases, broad goals cannot be achieved solely by governments and diplomatic representatives; citizens are involved as well, and their consent and cooperation is usually needed. Thus, to achieve issues such as human rights or democracy, awareness amongst the public must be raised. In Paul Sharp’s article “Who Needs Diplomats? The Problem of Diplomatic Representation”, he states that “people should live with the consciousness of citizens within their countries, accepting the claims of their governments and acknowledging the expertise of their diplomats”. However, what if the citizens do not agree? Then, simply enough, goals will not be achieved. Diplomats and governments must not lose sight of whom they represent. In order to achieve international goals peacefully, countries cannot have domestic conflict.

To those that believe that these minimalist methods of solving international issues peacefully are too idealistic and unfeasible, I currently agree. As PTJ put it, “states are war-making machines”. However, there are only two options: violence or nonviolence. I believe that nonviolent methods are completely doable, but they take patience, control, understanding, and time, things that countries often do not want to execute. Hopefully someday states will recognize the futility of war, and peaceful negotiations will be the only method of solving problems. But who knows how far off in the future that is.

#1

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

A universal language would most definitely increase humanity’s chances of reaching the daunting goal of world peace. The article by Christer Jönsson and Martin Hall (Communication: An Essential Aspect of Diplomacy) covers the relationship between communication and diplomacy very well. In their words, “Communication is to diplomacy as blood is to the human body. Whenever communication ceases, the body of international politics, the process of diplomacy, is dead, and the result is violent conflict or atrophy.”

The authors further probe the issue by dividing “communication” into the spoken language and body language. To me, body language can be viewed as the current “universal” language. Regardless of what sounds come out of a person’s mouth, strong emotions can be conveyed through hand gestures, facial expressions, and other bodily movements. If truly needed, a recipient will be able to understand the overall message, overcoming any spoken language barriers. However, body language is more ambiguous. The authors claim that the ambiguity can be viewed as an advantage: “Ambiguous signals allow the sender to argue ‘I never said that,’ ‘this is not what I meant,’ and the like, if the situation calls for it.” However, this vagueness is not what we need when trying to reach peace. Thus, although body language is “universal”, spoken language is needed to express exact wants and needs.

One might argue that our modern methods of translating are so quick and efficient, language barriers can be completely ignored. However, I disagree. Working towards world peace is a long, arduous process that includes countless details and complications. When diplomats converse with one another using a translator, minute details may be lost in the process and frustration may arise when exact wants cannot be expressed clearly. Translators are not able to convey much of the connotations and slang that are associated with every language.

Besides simplifying diplomacy from the current complicated system of translations, a universal language itself could potentially directly lead to a bit more world peace. People in every culture and every government hold biases against those of other countries; hearing the language of a nation that one is opposed to may unintentionally spark a prejudice in the listener, automatically creating an underlying layer of tension. In the futuristic world of Horizons, one that is much more united than our current one, Mary Rosenblum lets the issue of racial differences still affect international relations. Race “didn’t cause bloodshed in big wars, like it had once. But it was still an issue” (158). Even with access to the entire global economy, Ahni’s father mostly did business with other Asians. Asians were more familiar to him, with similar cultures and languages. Hopefully, a universal language could possibly begin pulling down these natural divides and create a greater sense of unity among the international community. However, regardless of whether or not it directly contributes to world peace, I do believe that a universal language would greatly increase the chance of peace across the globe.

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

In my opinion the world would be a little more peaceful if everyone spoke the same language. First off, if there was one worldwide language there would be less of a chance of miscommunication which could stop some unnecessary fighting and wars such as the case of World War I. Secondly, I believe that if everyone spoke the same language there would be less hate since everyone would share a common trait which would make everyone seem more equal and help eliminate useless acts of violence. Another way that the world would be more peaceful is that we would eliminate the need for translators and this would lead to expressing our ideas more clearly and efficiently and avoid certain problems which are included with the act of translation. The world would be more peaceful if we all spoke the same language.

-Andrei Papai-

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

I believe that the priority of a diplomat should be the overall outcome of the world as a whole instead of his or her home country. While a diplomat's home country has a very special meaning and is very important to diplomats it should not take precedent over the well being of everybody else in the world. In most cases the well being of the entire world would eliminate some of the problems that countries face which could eliminate problems in the diplomat's country. Even if the two were to conflict I still think that focusing on getting the best outcome in the world would be the better choice since if each diplomat were to focus on their country only then nothing meaningful would get done. The world needs more people especially ones with ties to the government that care for the well being of not only themselves and their nationality but that of everyone else as well. The primary purpose of the United Nations is to establish systems that reinforce the advancement of all countries and help the people living in the countries achieve a better life.

-Andrei Papai-

Should states care about the performance of their national team at sport events such as the World Cup and the Olympics

In my opinion states should care for the performance of their national team at any sport event since if that team wins it creates a renewed sense of pride and achievement in the local populace; which in turn helps create a better state through more ideas being generated about helping the country. Not to mention that in times of peace, a victory in a sports game can present a psychological victory over the losing countries which is in a sense a type of war without all the bloodshed. From my own experience when a state excels at something and achieves the ultimate goal of victory it creates a sense that one country is better than another. This is the same idea that comes with war and domination; when a country loses a war and a lot of its territory it begins to lose confidence in its government and the population begins to go into a sort of depression. While this may not be the same as losing at sports they are pretty similar. Having the opportunity to be in Argentina during the World Cup I have to say that when the national team lost it was as if each person had lost a member of their family. While this may have been more important to the Argentinians I am sure that each country has its own sense of disappointment and sadness at a huge loss. In conclusion, a country should invest a lot into the development of their sports teams in order to create a more confident nation which in turn leads to a better overall government, economy, and nation as a whole.

-Andrei Papai

blog questions

Here are the promised nine blog questions. Please answer as many as you need to, as specified on the syllabus; please also remember to post each answer as a separate blog post, so that others can reply as appropriate.

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

2. Short of war, how might a state and its authorized diplomatic representatives work to achieve some broadly desirable goal, like the promotion of human rights or democracy?

3. 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?

4. Are there issues in world politics that cannot, even in principle, be resolved through diplomatic means? In other words, are there limits to diplomacy?

5. 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?

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

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

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 should predominate?

9. Rosenblum notes on p. 245 of the paperback edition: "The only way to keep them [the space-residing humans, who are phenotypically different even though they are genetically the same] safe is to be separate. A nation with the power to protect its own." Hence, sovereignty protects difference, in this way of thinking about things. Do you agree?