#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. 

#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.