#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.