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.