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."
No comments:
Post a Comment