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-
While I agree with your points, it is not always possible for a diplomat to prioritize the advancement of the world as a whole when their individual country is not in a stable state to do so. For example the US drilling for oil in the Gulf of Mexico is claimed to be a necessary action. It greatly decreases the expenses imported oil would impose and helps stabilize the individual economy, however, it universally harms the environment. The US is acting for the advancement of their country and constituents instead of the world for a whole. This leads me to believe that the diplomatic process is a give and take system, where individual countries must advance themselves in order to contribute to the advancement of the world as a whole.
ReplyDeleteThis is a link to an article describing Americas internal conflict whether to drill or not depending on the benefit of the world v. individual nation:
http://24.124.1.232/news/2010/may/29/con-america-cant-afford-not-drill-gulf/
It is true that it is not always possible for a diplomat to prioritize the world above his nation’s own needs. However, I don’t think the U.S.A. is an adequate example of this situation. The U.S. is, and has been for many years, the most powerful country in the world. Despite its unfathomable amount of debt, currently around $13 trillion (U.S. National Debt Clock), the country “is the largest economy today and has the strongest army as well as a very powerful democracy” (Top 10 List). If anyone is in a position to help others, then the United States certainly is, and should. But as Rachel said, countries that are not in a “stable state to do so” should focus their attention more on internal needs. Countries that fall into this category include those that do not have stable economies, are currently involved in a civil war, or are dealing with natural crises. In cases such as these, where the majority of residents live through pain and suffering on a daily basis, countries should indeed focus on advancing the situation in their homeland. However, developed countries with stable societies should focus on getting outcomes that are beneficial to the world.
ReplyDeleteU.S. drilling on the Gulf Coast is definitely necessary in order to maintain a stable economy. As Rachel said, the drilling has detrimental effects on the global environment. However, the U.S. should recognize the harm this causes and make an effort to neutralize the consequences. For instance, an incredibly simple way to use gas more efficiently is for the government to strictly enforce speed limits. According to edmunds.com, driving at the speed limit results in up to 14 percent savings on gas, with an average of 12 percent. Speed cameras, which take pictures of vehicles that exceed the speed limit and send tickets to the owners of those vehicles [via mail], have spread across the country and are now used in several states (motorists.org). If the government implemented this simple development of technology all across the nation, people would cease speeding, just because of the fines they pay. An incredible amount of gas would be saved, drivers would automatically become more environmentally friendly, car accident rates would go down, and gas prices would drop. This goes without saying that the U.S. should also focus on developing technology so that the country is not so reliant on crude oil in the first place. Thus, even when a country is absolutely forced to pursue its own interests over the global good, it should find a way to balance out the harmful effects and find equilibrium, especially if it has the power to do so.