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.

Question #1

If the world were to speak one universal language it is my opinion that there would still be conflict. There are roughly 6500 different languages spoken worldwide, with hundreds of different dialects. If we were to replace all of these with just one in an attempt to create a more peaceful world, it is my belief that we would still find conflict. Peace is a tangible, controlled not solely through communication but by coexistence. Of the many nations’ that make up the world, each one has their own individual society, along with unique ideals and beliefs. Even with one collective universal language the beliefs of one nation will still deviate from the customs and beliefs of another nation. Speaking the same language can only get us so far. Even in the United States people can say the same words and yet mean two different things, based upon their perceptions, background and beliefs. Regardless of which language is used, people will still have contrasting values and ideas, and will still argue to try and prove their side.

Even with Diplomacy there is no exception. The Chinese may go about resolving an issue in a different fashion than the Americans would if they were faced with the same problem. Depending on the society and culture of the diplomats the plan of action can be incredibly different. Would the Chinese government believe that the moral solution to an issue is one that benefits the government rather than the individual? In comparison if the American government were faced with the same issue would it choose to benefit the citizens of the state rather than the government itself?

On a positive note, having a single language worldwide would make it easier for constructive arguments, with the use of translators in places such as the UN not necessary. Discussions and negotiations might have fewer misunderstandings, without language as a barrier. Using a common language won’t remove conflict entirely, but it would improve our ability to communicate with each other at a basic level.

Question #6

To win in world politics a nation must essentially become the most powerful superpower. The state must have the strongest position in the global economy as well and in global politics. But in addition to having power around the world the state must also be both politically and economically sound within its own borders.

In our game of diplomatic risk in order to win we simply had to achieve and plan towards one fairly simple goal, yet in actual world politics a nation leaders must focus on a plethora of different issues and work towards a goal that may seem simple, such as maintaining a certain amount of power around the world, but is complex and difficult to achieve. The superpower of the superpowers must import and export items that are vital to the economies of other nations, and his dependency must reach a point where if trade were cut off the stability of other nations would be in peril. This dependency then aids the powerful nation in securing a stronghold in global politics because it would be in the interest of most other nations to support the interests and needs of the superpower seeing as if the superpower is hurt they will feel it as well.

If the superpower were not both economically and politically stable it would be difficult for it to maintain or even build global dominance. In order to maintain economic stability there must be stability in the state’s government, so that order could be kept and things would run smoothly and efficiently.

Question #2

One way that a diplomat can promote human rights is by going through the U.N. and receiving the support and aid of other nations. Take the apartheid in South Africa; to promote human rights and end the suffering of thousands with out the brutality of war, diplomats of the U.N.’s general assembly adopted a voluntary international oil embargo on South Africa. This embargo injured the South African economy and helped end the apartheid. Nations around the world authorized their diplomats to adopt the embargo in the name of human rights.

There are others ways a state can promote democracy and human rights with out war. Diplomats can be authorized to open trade negations with a developing country. By integrating the poorer nations economy into the international economy a diplomat can stimulate economic growth within the nation. This economic growth can then reduce poverty and help form a middle class. And as trading partners become a key part of the developing nations economy they can influence government policies towards human rights and encourage democracy.

Question #4

There are limits to diplomacy in that there will not always be an option that is possible for agreement between all nations for whom an issue affects. Religion is a major difference between different cultures and through-out history there have been hundreds of events and issues that have been caused by religion and people’s inability to live with each other’s different values. These issues have been solved for short periods of time by agreements but none of these solutions seem to be permanent. With each new generation these religious beliefs are reintroduced to a new generation of people. It seems that when economic times are good, people are more tolerant with each other, but when times get hard disagreements arise and become exaggerated. Sometimes the conflicts escalate into war. The world saw a great war caused by this unwillingness to live with people of different religions during the Crusades, when Christians invaded Islamic countries to “retake” what they viewed as a holy land that had been stolen from them. During this event no use of diplomacy could prevail.

Another issue that is now recognized globally but seems to have limits to diplomacy is the issue of gay rights. There have been new laws and regulations passed globally, but on this hugely controversial subject the world cannot seem to come to a final agreement. Because of its strong ties to religious beliefs, in many countries homosexuality is strongly forbidden. With it becoming more and more acceptable in the twenty-first century though, it is a highly discussed issue that continues to be contentious. With the views on this topic being so different between the major religions, there does not seem to be a way to come to a conclusion that fits within all religious views.

But while some issues cannot be solved diplomatically, all issues can still be dealt with in a diplomatic fashion. To keep a tense situation from spiraling into violence or war, diplomats must remain neutral and respect other’s views. In the Mideast today where governments have been trying to gain peace for many years, there are severe disagreements that continue to block the path to peace. Diplomats are working hard to build trust while at the same time protecting the values and economic and security needs of each Mideast country.The strong diplomatic efforts from both Arab and Israeli countries, and the help of large powers such as the U.S., have kept the doors open for communicating and negotiating areas of agreement to help protect the interests of all the countries. I believe this has prevented the Mideast situation from dissolving into a more violent conflict or even nuclear war.

Question #2

To achieve a broadly desirable goal, short of war, a state and its authorized diplomatic representatives must use the art of communication. “Watson, quoted in Batora 2005 page 1” describes 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.” I believe that this means that a diplomats job is to use skills of communication to achieve such goals, without using negative threats or military violence. They can do this through discussing issues with fellow delegates at the United Nations, finding other nation’s who have the same concerns as they do, or supplying funds and setting up or finding a humanitarian organization specializing in the issue they want to support. Goals that involve changing a country’s infrastructure are more difficult, and in past history have almost always resulted in violence. An example of that would be the Iraq war that has lasted for years longer than anyone expected. By trying to create a democratic government in their society America has triggered many groups into revolt, injuring thousands of innocent people and destroying lives. The best way to go about something such as this would be to slowly introduce it, you cannot force something so new on a state with such foreign ways of society.

Question #3

When it comes time for global sporting competitions such as the World Cup or the Olympics, a state should care about its team’s performance. For events such as these, an entire nation is represented by just a small handful of people. The players and athletes wear their states’ colors and flags and by doing so become a living symbol of that nation. The fans share in this sense of national pride by also wearing the colors of their respective state. Because of this, the team’s performance can directly correlate with how other people of the world view that nation.

Global sporting competitions also spark a form of internationalism that otherwise would not occur. An example would be the United States, a state where “football” is not the most popular sport, yet from the month long span of time of June 11th to July 11th, the World Cup was one of the most highly watched and discussed events in the U.S.. Americans wanted to support “their” team and show pride for the country they belong to. Further still, global sporting events create an cross-national interest as even when an individual state’s team loses and is out of the competition, the citizens of that nation do not stop watching these global events, but rather find another team to support and watch. This promotes friendly sportsmanship between states and unites the world as one supporting the athleticism and teamwork of the competition. The healthy competition of sports may even present an opportunity to diffuse aggressions between countries on the playing field. If you traveled to another state during these global competitions, you would also perceive the world impact of the games. A common topic of the games can be discussed between individuals of separate states, which reduces the “distance” between nations.

But while a win in an event may improve a nation’s image, it does not necessarily change the political status of the state, its interrelations with other state, or its diplomatic positions. In fact it could potentially incite more aggressive attitudes between highly competitive nations creating more hostility. Instead of forming common bonds between states this could end up separating them more. Though unlikely, this incensed national pride can also be used to fulfill particular political schemes, to create justification and support for military plans against other states. In addition, if a country were to win the World Cup it would not likely improve their trade relations with others or improve their economic condition, they would only have the glory of winning the competition. Global competitions can create a huge boost to a state’s sense of nationalism but other than that a state receives no benefits in supporting the sporting competitions if it is looking for an impact to global relations or acceptance and its stature with respect to its politics.

Question #8

Most diplomats have at one time or another put their country’s interests before those of the world as a whole. For example, despite evidence of global warming and the harmful effects of greenhouse gasses, in 1998 the U.S. became a signatory of the Kyoto Protocol but has never ratified it. Due to this lack of ratification the U.S. is now one of eight countries that have not ratified the protocol, while 188 have capped their emissions. If we were to cap our emissions it would hurt our industry, so by signing but not ratifying the protocol our diplomats and our government put the interests of our country first. But the diplomats of our country have also focused on the interests of the world. Take WWII, our country was not being invaded and we might have been able to keep our soldiers from being killed, but we jumped in and helped our European brethren whose countries were being ravaged. In this instance we were looking at the world as a whole and seeing that it was in the worlds best interests that the Axis be stopped.

There are also times when a diplomat must choose whose interests to put first depending on the situation. This is because while a diplomat could put the interests of his country first in every situation, that is not how peace is maintained and much of a diplomat’s job is maintaining peace. To sustain order peace throughout the word diplomats must make compromises on behalf of their country. Say a certain resolution does not support all of a country’s interests but instead supports a select few that can be agreed upon by most states the diplomat should not reject, he should see that compromise has been made and that his country is still benefits from the resolution and support it.

Question #5

Looking back on our game of diplomatic Risk, although it was difficult to reach the objective given, it provided a unique view on the world and diplomacy. I went about trying to win the game in a very difficult way, and ultimately the incorrect way and I did not lack the resources and opportunities I needed to win, I just didn't utilize them correctly. My objective given to me at the beginning was to simply conquer Russia and have the World Council vote at the end of the round, and in addition to that I was given three different resource stars all around the map. Because these resource stars were placed in such obscure countries such as Madagascar and Western Australia, I felt as if they were no good and ignored them. So instead of using the extra armies I received with the stars, I tried to build armies with the scarce amount of troops I was given before each round. Unfortunately the armies in Madagascar, Western Australia, and Alaska grew tremendously, but in inconvenient places. In terms of the objective, I had terrible strategically placed countries, only having two near Russia, and yet I still tried to build those armies instead of using the large ones I had elsewhere. The small armies got destroyed and in the end I had a three large armies in Australia, Madagascar, and Alaska which I could not use in time to win. Looking back I should have pushed the large armies up through Europe and Africa so that they were placed closer to Russia, and also should have used my ally more effectively. I was given one ally to start with, and due to poor planning and strategy we were not able to do anything productive. We should have worked out deals to move around armies and transfer troops to more strategic positions instead of going our own ways. It became obvious that in the game of diplomatic risk it is important to utilize your allies because it is extremely difficult to go about the game by yourself. I tried achieving my objective by myself, and I soon realized I should have communicated more with my ally and then we might have had a better outcome. In the final round I ended up in a war with very other player except my ally, and due to my poor planning and movement of my armies I had no chance of winning. Noticing my mistakes, I know now that in diplomatic Risk it is important to use your resources and your allies to your advantage, and do not try to achieve your objective solely on a few of your armies.

Question #3

Countries should care about the success of their national teams because of the impact that success could have on the world's image of that country. Sporting events such as the Olympics or the World Cup provide the chance for states to demonstrate their sportsmanship and camaraderie, or lack of, and the success of a national team is important to a country in terms of moral and reputation. During sporting events like these, people from all over the world are watching, therefore it is important that athletes and teams put on their best performances and their best behavior. With these athletes being ambassadors to their countries, it is important to sustain a good reputation because anything that happens could reflect poorly on your country. From an economic standpoint worldwide sporting events are beneficial because they allow countries to advertise and demonstrate their value to people across the globe. For example during the Olympics an american could see an advertisement promoting cruises in Norway, because for a few months Norway is thrown into the global spotlight whereas at any other time it is not seen as a big tourist attraction. Although these sporting events are a chance for countries to advertise and get on the map, states also use these competitions to boost the morale of the people.

The Olympics and World Cup give the fans and citizens of countries a chance to support their country and a reason to rally behind them. A struggling nation, whether it be economic trouble or political turmoil, has the opportunity to unite for a month out of the year, to stop all violence that might be occurring, and to forget all religious, political, and racial differences. If an unstable country has a common goal, for their soccer team to win the World Cup, then those people all have the same thing to cheer for. Athletic competitions not only give countries a chance to improve global reputation, but also gives them hope in times of trouble and something to unite around. So although they are only labeled as friendly competitions, global sporting events are important to countries and they should care about their teams, regardless of whether they win or lose.

Question 8

As a diplomat, it is important that one cares about both internal and international affairs. While both are very important in keeping a country prosperous and safe, ultimately state matters should come before global interests. To be a successful country there needs to be a strong foreign policy along with a solid infrastructure, particularly a well balanced economy and stable political system. Global cooperation is extremely important from an economic standpoint because international trade is a large contributor to a country's success. For a diplomat it is important to keep strong ties and healthy relationships with trading partners, so that country can prosper. While part of a diplomat's job is to strengthen relationships between different nations, it is more important to put the needs of one's country first. If the decision arose whether to put state affairs ahead of international affairs, then the former would predominate because if a country becomes unstable it is because of a weak internal infrastructure.

A diplomat's job is to deal with foreign affairs, but if a state issue should arise, then the diplomat would have to decide whether he cares more about his title or his home country. In my opinion one should always place the issues of the state first because if something should go wrong to make your country unstable, it is more important to deal with those rather than international issue. So although a diplomat's title requires him to deal with foreign matters, internal affairs should predominate because it is for the betterment of the state.

Question #9

The American Heritage Dictionary defines sovereignty as a territory existing as an independent state. Theoretically this means that a group of people, such as the space-residing humans, could in fact take a part of NY Up and claim it as a separate state, achieving sovereignty. Unfortunately this does almost nothing in protecting their difference. Even if the Koi and his relative managed to get the council to recognize their territory as a sovereign state they would need defenses and a military to truly protect them. It does not matter whether the military comes from the aid of other nations or the space-residing humans themselves, but sovereignty alone is no protection. There are always people or even nations willing to exploit differences and use them against the new sovereign state. This is also demonstrated in the real world. Take Israel, they have achieved sovereignty and been recognized by the United Nations, yet they are still attacked over religious differences (and territorial claims). The only reason the nation still exists is because they have a good military and great defenses. Israel is a sovereign state dedicated to protecting the differences of the Jewish faith, but sovereignty does not protect these differences.

Question #7

Powerful countries do in fact have obligations to less powerful countries. Of course these obligations stem from peaceful relations between powerful and less powerful countries. This is because if the relations are peaceful and the two countries are allied the more powerful of the two is inclined to help its ally so that if the powerful country ever fell upon hard times it world receive help. Also it simply looks good in the eyes of the world if the powerful country doesn’t go around conquering the earth but rather works for peace. Lichtenstein is a good example of a less powerful country that relies on the obligations of more powerful states. The small country has no military and simply relies on the peaceful relations it has with Germany and Austria to avoid conflict.

Just as powerful countries have an obligation to less powerful countries, rich countries have obligations to poorer ones. We see these obligations being fulfilled every day with the United Nations (funded by rich nations) and its programs that work to fight hunger and with the U.S. giving aid to poorer nations. The obligations that rich countries have to the poorer states come from dissenting people in the nation and the world. For example, if people in a democratic state want their country to aid a poorer one they will simply vote for the candidate who promises to use part of the nation’s GDP to help the poorer nation, and so the leaders of the country are now obligated to take on a new obligation. Also states tend to enjoy being liked and supported by other states, so to gain this support a state must take on the obligation of relieving the suffering citizens of a poorer state and give them aid.

Question #4

Diplomacy stops when a nation considers its most important beliefs and principals to have been stepped on by another country. Take the United States’ issue with Iran. One of the reasons Iran’s government and some of its people dislike us is because they believe that our western culture began to destroy age-old notions and values, causing wealthy women to dress in a more modern style and religion to lose its place as the center of the nation’s culture. The U.S. was blamed for the crumbling of Iran’s cultural principals causing relations between the two countries to diminish to the point where the U.S. does not even formally recognize the state.

There are also other times when diplomacy has been limited on the basis of protecting principals. After World War II the United States employed the policy of containment. Containment referred to communism and through this policy and the doctrines that stemmed from it the U.S. vowed to stop the spread of communism around the world. Due to the fact that the government was committed to stopping communism at all costs we, for the most part, left diplomacy at the door and picked up the guns. This was particularly evident in Vietnam, where we fought the communist north for years trying to “help” the people when in reality most of them supported the northern, communist leader, Ho Chi Minh. Communism went against many of the United State’s most basic values, so we decided that if we were right they had to be wrong and we therefore had to limit our diplomacy with nations that supported it.

Question #1

While a universally spoken language would make communication easier, it would not make the world a more peaceful place. Conflicts between existing nations are not solely based on communication problems; they are the result of differences in political, economic and social ideology. Different nations have conflicting interests which would not disappear merely because they spoke the same language. Racial tensions would still cause problems and people would continue to fight over resources, land and freedom. This can be proven by looking at the history of two English speaking countries: Britain and the USA. Although both nations were united by the same language, the Americans revolted and fought a Civil War against the English because they did not want to pay taxes to the English king. The two places would have come into a conflict no matter what language they spoke. The same is true of the fighting in Europe in the 19th century between Austria and Prussia, whose people both spoke German. The problems of the world would still exist and wars would still be fought even if everyone spoke the same language.
On its own a universal language would not make the world a more peaceful place; but nonetheless, it would be helpful. Problems could be worked out more efficiently because no translation would be necessary. World organizations such as the United Nations would also benefit because they would not have to hire translators and could use the funds for other purposes. In general, it would be beneficial to problem solving because it would give the people of the wold another common ground: all people would have something else to hold them together. Having one language for the entire world would make conferences simpler and contribute to a more unified global community.

Question #6

As in the Risk world simulation, winning in actual world politics would depend on your country's goals - in the case of the board game, your 'objectives'. Because different countries have different goals, they would have to accomplish special things in order to win. Often these goals would be determined by their political ideology. For example, a communist country such as the USSR during the Cold War, could only have won once the entire world was under communist regime. Much of what it would have taken for them to win did not directly depend on their nation, but on the politics of the global community. During this conflict, the US would have faced similar challenges as they tried to win because their goals also involved the world as a whole. As opposed to the USSR, however, the US' goals involved the spread of free-market capitalism and democracy. Countries whose goals only involve their nation would have an easier time winning. Such goals could include wealth, power, social justice or equal right.
As opposed to the clear, written objectives of each nation in the board game simulation, countries' objectives are always changing or not clearly defined, making it hard to tell whether or not a country has won. It is the easiest in dictatorships, where one person holds all the power and thus chooses the goals on his own. In comparison, democracies' goals are much less clear. Since the people choose the government, their goals should also be the goals of the state. Yet people hold many different, often completely contrasting opinions, making it impossible for the government to represent them all. Democratic governments also face many problems that more autocratic forms of rule do not. They must make their people happy in order to be reelected, which often focuses their goals on fixing national instead of international problems. Because each government faces separate problems and has separate goals, winning means something else to each nation.

Question #7

Powerful countries often have obligations toward weaker countries to provide military aid in times of need. They have these obligations not only if they are part of a treaty, but also if they need help to fight something that the more powerful country stands against. For example, powerful democracies have obligations to help weaker countries if their democracy is threatened. In such cases powerful countries should provide as much aid as they can give to help solve the problems. Where people's liberties are threatened, powerful countries need to do what they can to ensure that people's rights are protected. Powerful countries also have obligations to help when one country tries to take control of another. One example is World War II, when the Allies eventually stopped Hitler from achieving his goal of controlling large portions of the world. By taking this initiative, they stopped one of the largest crimes seen by humanity: the genocide of the Jewish people.
Wealthy nations have similar obligations to poorer states, especially when it comes to financial aid for health care. When one nation has a health epidemic and does not have the funds or resources to stop it, it is the duty of wealthier countries to help put it to a stop. This will not only save lives in the poorer state but also stop the spread of the disease into other countries. Financial help for health care needs to be given by all wealthy nations as part of helping the progress of the global community. Wealthy nations should also provide food aid and invest time, research and money into programs to help stop poverty. Many of these problems are of world wide concern and will not be stopped merely with the resources of the poorer nations. Both powerful and weak, wealthy and poor nations need to work together to solve global problems.