Question #5

In our game of diplomatic risk my objective was to control 14 territories. I was aligned with the global hegemon Rachel at the start of the game. I saw this as fortuitous because of the inherent strength of Rachel's faction. She could support and protect the interests of my much meager faction. And since our objectives didn't directly conflict it seemed the best course of action to stay aligned with her. I started out by trying to conquer any territories I could get since they were all equally useful in regards to my objective. When Rachel and i welcomed Nicole into our alliance I was not as supportive of it as I was at first being aligned with just Rachel, since that meant one less player I could take territories from but I figured three was better than two, and if World War Two was any indication of which side would win I was happy with it. That's of course me putting my alliances interests before my own. And I was increasingly growing concerned with Rachel's rapid expansion in the Americas. My hope was that I could conquer my 14 territories before Rachel won, which seemed doable at my rate of territorial acquisition. But then Ben started to focus his attacks on me, and was quite successful. The last few turns before Rachel won, I wanted to position my forces in Africa so I could invade Brazil and stop her advance. However I was nervous to break my alliance with her due to our alliances strength and my increasingly weak position due to Ben. After Rachel's victory, I just wanted to kill as many of her troops as possible and maybe take a few territories. Didn't work as planned due to my already weakened state, and my inability to appease Ben enough to sign a truce.

In retrospect I probably should have broken my alliance with Rachel at the outset, which would have given me the ability to side with whoever would benefit me the most later on in the games as conditions changed. Another issue that hindered me was how spread out I was. I had no strong base, as did Rachel, and Nicole. This was a condition of my objective however, that I just need 14 territories anywhere. Rachel was cincerned about the Americas, Nicole with Russia, Ben with Russia, And even Nicolle need 10 or so contiguous territories so her focus would have naturally been wherever she already had several territories together. And because of my territorial spread. Ben was able to take several of my territories and I had no forces close enough to retake them.

Question #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?

Simply put as a diplomat you should act as if you are primarily concerned about the issues of whatever country you are stationed in, but in reality keep your primary focus on your country's interests. Now in regard to a country's foreign policy in general it may not be so simple, because what benefits another country in the short term may end up benefiting your country in the long term. But let's for now focus on being a single diplomat stationed in another country. In Tripoli during the early 19th century American diplomats supported the ousted Tripolitian leader Hamet. However they did this not out of any loyalty to Hamet but rather for American shipping interest in the Mediterranean. The Americans supported Hamet so he would depose his brother Yussef, and then stop the Tripolitian pirating of American ships. Now as a diplomat the best way to broach the deal with Hamet obviously wouldn't be, "Hey Hamet, we'll help you depose your brother so that are ships won't be taken." It would be more like, "Man, you'd be an awesome leader, I mean look how all the people would rather be led by you. I bet you'd be such a good leader of Tripoli that you wouldn't need the profits of pirating. So tell you what we'll help you depose your brother, establish you as pasha. And then you know since we kinda put you in power you'll not take our ships." Something tells me they didn't use that exact language but I'm sure there was a lot of brown nosing. Also American policy was never fully behind supporting Hamet, there were many totally different strategies of handling the situation all being executed at the same time. I'm quite sure they never told Hamet this. And if Hamet ever stated he'd continue pirating American ships we would have ended any assistance to him immediately.

Our only interest was what we would gain out of the situation. It certainly wouldn't be very useful for your country if you as a diplomat cared more about the issues of another country, and put their agendas first. I think the reason why countries are generally so self interested is exactly the same reason you propose for why wars occur. Since there is no higher authority than states there is no policing of what states do, there is nothing that says states have to cooperate, wars are a testament to that. And I think it could be said that most diplomacy is just a nicer, not so violent approach to issues, but many times it is just as competitive. When countries do work together it is for the mutual benefit of all, but as a state your only concern is how much benefit you'll receive. Whether in the long term or the short term. When it comes to the long term benefits, things can get a bit muddled. cause even if an issue has no relevance to your state, if it will cost your country a negligible enough amount it can still benefit you simply by supporting it and telling other countries how nice and altruistic you are, thus building political capital. Going back to the language the Americans used to gain Hamet's support, I think this quote sums it up pretty well "Diplomacy is the art of telling someone to go to Hell in such a way as to make them look forward to the journey."

Question #9

Yes I believe being a sovereign nation protects difference. For example take the Croatians in Yugoslavia in the late 1980's. They had a separate identity as did all the Yugoslav republics. For most of the country's history all the ethnic groups particularly the catholic Croatians, the orthodox Serbians, and the Bosniak Muslims lived in an equilibrium of culture and identity. However once Milosevic rose to power in Serbia he wanted to enforce Serbian dominance in the rest of the country. This was done mostly by way of having government, military, and other important official jobs in the republics and the country as a whole filled by Serbs. The average Croatian was frightened of the prospect of having their culture submissive to Serbia. So they declared themselves independent of Yugoslavia so as to protect their identity. Now even more interesting is that the Serbs living in Croatia, which was now a self-declared sovereign nation, decided they wanted their independence from Croatia. And like the Croats the Croatian Serbs were concerned that the Croatians would eliminate their culture, quite possibly by means of actually eliminating the Serbs themselves. Once Bosnia declared independence for many of the same reasons as Croatia, the exact same thing happened with Bosnian Serbs declaring themselves independent from Bosnia, and this time the Croats living in Bosnia did this as well.

This is also an example of how far people will go to protect their identity. Just the fear that the Serbs would end up being more powerful in Yugoslav politics than the Croats was enough to convince the Croats to break away. And the Croatian Serbs hated the idea of living in an independent Croatia so much that they broke away, but the tragedy of Yugoslavia is that this fear of cultural loss so enraged people that they started a war, but not a normal war, in many cases a total war, were your side could only win if everybody else was either dead or completely removed. Genocide, mass rape, destruction of whole towns, all sides did this just to protect their differences and they believed that the only way to be different was to be separate. But now look at the Balkans. Every single republic of Yugoslavia is now an independent country, even Kosovo which was only a semi-autonomous region of Serbia has semi-recognized independence, and things are relatively peaceful, and each republic has their own identity, their own culture, and their own differences. That they could not have had all being in one country where none of them were sovereign powers.

Question #3

A country is stronger when its people stand united, whether it is against a common enemy, such as their rival team, or for their national team. During the 2010 winter Olympics millions of American stood in support of American heroes like Apollo Ohno and Shaun White, and at the 2008 summer Olympics we cheered on Michael Phelps. As we watched our heroes win silver and gold medals we had pride in our country, and at the end of the events we had more nationalism than we had at the beginning. A country needs this pride and nationalism when it fights wars and tries to solve issues, because where there is nationalism there is support.

Winning sports teams also create revenue for a state. When a team does well its fans want to show their support by buying jerseys and flags and other miscellaneous objects that scream encouragement at their team. All of this buying creates revenue that helps the economy of the nation and the sports team itself.

Question #9

In my opinion it is true that sovereignty does protect difference. By having a separate state, you are communicating that you are a union of people with your own customs and beliefs. Of all the states that make up our world, no two are the same. Each state, with its own flag and culture, has a uniqueness that differentiates it from other nations. By being aware of and appreciating the uniqueness of others, it is easier to accept someone who is different from yourself.

Unfortunately, the reverse is also true. When you are viewed as a group of people who are different, the world can just as easily fear and resonate against you. People who are different may be targeted, and even denied the same rights that another group or nation enjoys. And if you belong to a sovereign nation with no source of defense or military system your country cannot be fully protected in the case of an attack. Hence, by keeping Koi and his family separate from the Earth residing humans they have less of a chance at being targeted as “alien” and more of being accepted, but they are still vulnerable to aggression.

Question #8

As a diplomat it is your job is to do what is best for your country, but also to take into consideration the affects of an issue on the world as a whole. To truly be successful in thinking about the best outcome for your country and your world sometimes a diplomat must first “lose a fight to win a war”. This means that in order to reach the outcome you desire for your country sometimes you need to do what is most appropriate for the world, and you may have to put aside some of your country’s specific needs in relation to an all encompassing global need. Without the coexistence and prosperity of other nations there could be no lone prosperous nation. To always put one’s country first might lead to an immovable wall in which the country has no one to look to for assistance. Imagine if your country were scheduled to host the Olympics, but there was suddenly a wide spread epidemic of a serious disease. Knowing that this type of event would bring in huge revenue for your state and boost your economy you would want to host it. But having the responsibility for other states and their people, you know that it is dangerous and irresponsible to host such an event with such horrible conditions and must say no.

But as your title states, you are “the diplomat of__” meaning you are responsible for your nation specifically. To have strong international ties is essential, but if your internal government is not stable then your country’s ability to prosper is very weak and it could become victim to a more powerful nation. As a diplomat it is your responsibility to do what is best for your country, but to protect your country you must also take into consideration the impact of your actions on the world as a whole.

Question #7

Powerful countries have certain obligations towards less powerful nations. Powerful nations have the ability, both economically and militarily, to enforce their decisions or to correct societal ills. In the UN, states that sit on the Security Council (with veto power) have a special obligation to impartially oversee the issues that involve less powerful nations. It is their duty as the states with power to perform their role fairly and to do what is best for not only themselves but for the countries they have power over as well.

In the ongoing debate on global warming, Kyoto Protocol expresses the principal of “common but differentiated responsibilities.” This meaning that the more developed countries who emitted the most greenhouses gasses during the industrial era, should have the greatest responsibility in fighting climate change.

Wealthier countries also have an obligation to support the less wealthy if they should need it. This is true for both global economic reasons such as trade and for social inequality reasons. However, at the same time, poorer nations cannot always look to the rich for financial support. Poorer countries should be encouraged to independently create a source of income and not depend on the funding from other nations to stay financially secure. In some cases, poorer countries exist with limited resources or inadequate financial or industrial/commercial foundations. Wealthier countries have a role in helping the poorer countries develop this foundation to advance their economic freedom. A positive result could be that by assisiting poorer states we can eventually trade with them.

On a smaller scale, I am sure anyone who watches cable television has at some point seen a commercial asking for donations to help sponsor children at risk in third-world nations. The reason these can be commonly seen in America is because, as one of the wealthiest countries in the world with a surplus of resources, we are expected to help those countries with lack of resources. For countries blessed with a strong economy many citizens feel it is their moral obligation to help those less fortunate in an attempt to “give back” for all that they have.