#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.