#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.