response to question 5

In our game of Diplomatic Risk I was a neutral country. My objective was to neutralize all wars completly. If I could not do that I had to double the number of wars with bi-lateral alliances. I didn't need resources as much as I needed oppurtunities. I think if I would have been able to create more alliances it would have been better for me. I mean Taylor and Ellen created a tight alliance. I guess I would have needed some type of like trust to be broken in between them for me to create alliances with them. It's tough to tell though because you never know what's going to happen. Everything is so unpredictable. Yes, you can negotiate but you have to trust that the person is going to hold up their end of the bargain. If Ellen and Taylor would have broken their alliance it would have possibly made it easy for my to allie with them. Although, it could have made it more difficult for me because another war would have been created. I think that if I would have used my super power sooner it would have opned more oppurtunities for me. Like I said though it is really difficult to determine something like that though. International dealings are tricky. You can't predict what's going to happen next.

i am answering question number 9

As a diplomat is it more importand to advance the issues at home or is it better to help the world as a whole? if the two conflict how do you decide which to support? It is a two sided coin. if you put your country first then your country as a whole would be better suited to help the world later. However if you help the world then you are also helping your country which is a part of the world. In the end it all depends on your countries leaders. If they decide what the country wants then if you want to keep your job and continue representing said country then there is no conflict. You are representing your countries views not your own.

Response to question nine

I disagree that soveriegnty is the best way to keep people safe. You may be there because you all look the same or you all speak the same language, but it's not going to work. You may all look the same but you think differently. Religions come into play alot and so does ethinicity. In Germany during the Holocaust over six million Jews were murdered because Hitler didn't like they're religion. So, now here let's give the Jews Palestine so they can be separated and have their own homeland. That didn't work because the Arabs said their ancestors were there first. So, now you have just created another conflict. When, Europe divided Africa they were just carving the land and not looking at where they were placing people. Rwanda ended up with two ethnic groups fighting for power. That created yet another genocide that spilled into the Congo. Even if you were to separate all ethnic groups and give them their own land there wouls still be problems. People would be fighting over how much land they got, and where it's located. You're never goingto satisfy everyone. Separating everyone isn't going to work either. Mary Rosenblum's idea of separating people was only based off of apperance. We already did that and look where we are today

I am responding to question 7

Countries with more power do not have a particular obligation to less powerful countries. Why should it be their duty to help them? Obviously, the countries with more power have it for a reason. They were albe to establish themselves and jump into the political pool. These countries with less power are always unstable. they have interstate issues that disable them from having power. I know then you get the well lets go help them. They don't want help half the time. Look at Iraq, theywere a less powerful country who had what we wanted. Our abligation to help them had to do with the fact that they had oil. We're there now trying to force their ethnic groups to get along. How did that end up our problem? It never was. Less powerful countries need to learn to deal on their own. Once we start to support them it's never going to end. obviously, tp the Untied States seems to be the only country to think we have this obligation. Do you see other countries rushing in to help other people. The same goes for rich countries helping poorer countries. The United States is supposed to be a rich country yet we're what 13+ trillion dollars in debt. I don't see where we're getting the money to help less fortunate countries. I do feel bad for them, but there is no way that we should be obligated to help them when we can't help oursleves.

I am answering question number 7

Powerful countries have a moral obligation to poor countries. they are morally obligated to assist and establish. not my means of hand outs that only help for days weeks or months but by helping to establish a self reliant way of life. In 1903 there was a poet named George R. Sims he wrote a poem called Christmas day in the work house. In the poem he wrote of the pleasantry of Christmas and of the feast he also wrote of a man who choked on the pudding that came once a year, the starvation of the remaining days, of how people came so proud of what they had brought with their money. Money that came from the rates they charged the poor. they set up a system of hand outs that were paid for by the people who had no way to sustain them selves.

The powerful obligating to the poor people is to help establish and sustain themselves for future generations to come. The rich countries also have an obligation to the poorer ones they are obligated the follow the same rules as everyone else. To not have breaks because of who they are and what they make. they need to follow the rules and are morally obligated to help but that is the extent.

Response to Question 9

Rosenblum notes on p. 245 of the paperback edition: "The only way to keep them [the space-residing humans, who are phenotypically different even though they are genetically the same] safe is to be separate. A nation with the power to protect its own." Hence, sovereignty protects difference, in this way of thinking about things. Do you agree?

If sovereignty is defined as a political body not under external control, then yes I think that I would say that it protects difference. The reasoning behind this is that if an area is controlled by the local population and not by people from some far off place than they will be more able to keep their specific identity because outsiders with different ideas or practices will not influence it.

I feel that the flip side of this idea is illustrated by the Colonial Era. During this time period, powerful countries ere using military force to impose their way of life on other parts of the world in order to gain economic and political advantages over their competitors. The result was often that people in the colonized areas were forced to take on many aspects of the cultures of the colonizer countries, and in turn lost parts of their own culture. In addition the cultural side of this, the colonized people were being ruled by governments and rulers that had no idea what life in that area was like and so, often laws and political lines were made that did not make any sense to the people of the colonized area.

That happened it Africa and no we are seeing the outcome. The lines of the current countries did not correspond necessarily with where traditionally tribes had identified with. This issue has lead to many conflicts over the years. It is possible that many o these conflicts would have been avoided if Africa and other colonized areas had been allowed to develop on their own into individual sovereign states.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&defl=en&q=define:sovereignty&sa=X&ei=JnZxTIuEBYGClAeW76i_CA&ved=0CBYQkAE

Response to Question 6

What might it mean to "win" in actual world politics (as opposed to in a board game simulating some aspects of world politics)?

In world politics I don’t think that winning is that much different to what it was like in our Diplomatic risk board game. I think that winning in world politics is getting through the diplomatic process and ending up with the most important interests of the body that you represent intact. It was very similar in our Diplomatic Risk game, you had to make it through the game and try to be as close to your objective as possible by the end. It is similar to the game also because you probably would have to make compromises to what you wanted along the way and change your course of action.

Although the game is decidedly less complicated than real life because in reality you can’t just attack another country because they are in your way. In actual world politics you would probably have to get involved with even more negotiations with the country in your ay in order to keep moving towards the goal of whatever government or group you represent.

Also the goals and ideals of a particular group might change in world politics where, in the game everything was fixed. Winning in the real world of world politics is also a lot more complicated because someone rarely gets through the process of negotiations with the exactly what they started out with as a goal at the end. Finally, there are a lot more different groups out there all with different interest in real world politics than there were in the game.

Response to Question 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?

I think that theoretically in some sort of future earth everything could be resolved by negotiation between diplomats. In the current global society that we live in, however, I don’t think that in practice everything can be solved through diplomatic means. There are some people who just won’t listen, and there are also some issues that people are just not willing to compromise on. Currently many countries are showing that they are unwilling to bend even a little hen it comes to subject involving religion and how religion should be combined with the other aspects of a society.

Also, countries are often unwilling to compromise when they have been doing something one way for a very long time and the negotiations try and change how they do things. Another issue that often hinders the diplomatic process seems to be that countries that are in powerful positions are often less willing to solve some issues in a diplomatic way if it is a threat to their position of power. One example that we saw o this at NSLC was the reform of the United Nations Security Council. There are many who believe that the Security Council needs reform, but it would be virtually impossible to pass any reforms because currently the United States, Russia, China, France, and the United Kingdom hold more powerful positions than the other countries and they would veto anything that threatened their power.

Response to Question 1

Would the world be a more peaceful place if everyone spoke the same language? Think here specifically about issues of communication and diplomacy.

It is very difficult to determine if the world would be any more peaceful if everyone spoke the same language. There are very convincing arguments for both sides of the question. On the one hand, if everyone spoke the same language then there might be more understanding between different groups of people. There would no longer be a language barrier to keep the two sides of a conflict from understanding each other. Also, if everyone spoke the same language the world might be more peaceful because people might see it as a common thing that was shared by everyone, and they wouldn’t attack because they would find that they have things in common with the other people.

On the other hand, already a lot of people in the world speak English and it has not stopped war from happening and it does not appear as if wars and conflict will stop any time soon, even though English is continuing to spread. Also, there could still be conflicts that things like a language wouldn’t fix, like racism. There is still sometimes discrimination against African Americans and other minorities here in the U.S. even thought we all speak the same language. Besides, even if everyone spoke in the same language there would probably still be people who understood, but were just not willing to listen.

Response to 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?

My objective in the Diplomatic Risk game was basically to takeover as many countries as possible. I was a religious movement and I needed at least fifteen to win. I was pretty far from that goal by the end of the game. I wasn’t even that I as at war that was the major problem.

In fact it may have even benefited me to be at war with more people, however it took incredibly long to switch territories with allies. There would have been almost no way for me to arrange to peacefully trade and end up with at least fifteen countries. It would have really helped me if there were some way to switch territories more quickly and simply. It would have been helpful I you didn’t have to only have one army let in your country before switching; I was always hesitant to do that because I thought I might be attacked between my turn and my allies. .

I think it would have been a lot easier to meet my objective if I had more armies as well. Because if I built up one area it meant that I had to leave other places with less protection than I would have liked. If I had had more armies I cold have both protected the areas I wanted keep and I could have built up forces in areas where I wanted to attack.

Also it would have been really helpful to my objective if there were a way to attack across areas that are not connected. Often there were areas that were very poorly fortified and they were separated from where I had troops. If I could have somehow flown troop in or something, once I had allied with the country that was separating us that would have my objective much easier.

Response to Question 7

Do powerful countries have any particular obligations towards less powerful countries? How about rich countries in relation to poorer ones?

Powerful countries do have certain obligations to less powerful countries. First and foremost they simply have to be aware at all times of what is going on in the countries of a less powerful standing. They should not necessarily act on what they observe, that must be determined by the situation specifically and cannot really be made into some general rule, but they need to at least be aware. If they have been paying attention to the other parts o the world, when the time comes where a decision has to be made whether or not to act, than the powerful country can at least make an informed decision because the have been monitoring whatever situation the entire time and know all the facts. Another aspect of the powerful countries obligation to help is, if a weak or struggling country asks for aid that the powerful state can reasonably provide than it is their responsibility to provide that support. I think that all of these situations translate similarly to the relationship between rich and poor countries. When the earthquake in Haiti occurred on January 12, 2010, and it became evident that the Haitian people were not going to be able to recover on their own many other nations provided disaster relieve and other forms of aid for the up to three million effected people as well as the government. The rich country should not decide whether or not to assist another country asking for help based on political alliances that might be in place, although that does happen sometimes.

Haiti Devastated by Massive Earthquake. BBC, 13 Jan. 2010. Web. 22 Aug. 2010. ..

i am responding to question number 1

The world in some ways would be a more peaceful place if everyone spoke the same language. However many of the same struggles would still continue. Speaking the same language would enable you to speak but it doesn't necessarily mean that communications would be better. A group of delegates can be in a room filled with many different languages and cultures and still accomplish as little in the way of communication and diplomacy as a group of delegates from the same language and culture. the only thing that would change if the world spoke the same language is that we would all hear the same words, how each nation interprets those words would still cause either peace or war. The amount of effort that it would take in order to accomplish the goal would still be the same the amount of friction every delegate would give would still be the same. Every country would still try to obtain the same goals the same way.

I am responding to question 8

As a diplomat, should one focus on furthering the interests of their home country, or creating the best possible outcome for the global community? The answer should be a little of both. The duty of a diplomat is to represent their home country and the opinions of its people or leaders in making decisions that affect the world as a whole. Therefore, it is logical that diplomats should not solely focus on the interests of their countries, barring crises and disasters. They should help their country when engaged in acts of negotiation and diplomacy, but should not do so at a negative cost to others outside their country.

Unfortunately, diplomacy has not always focused on the international well being as much as it should. Paul Sharp wrote in his article, "Who Needs Diplomats? The Problem of Diplomatic Representation", that "Failures of diplomacy...involved over-ambitious attempts at international management for which no consensus existed...". In other words, diplomacy doesn't work if one uses it just for their own benefit. Therefore it is essential that a diplomat act in the world's interests, not the interests of themselves.

Sharp, Paul. "Who Needs Diplomats? The Problem with Diplomatic Representation." Web. 21 Aug. 2010.

I am responding to question 7

Do politically and economically advantaged countries have any obligations to politically and economically disadvantaged countries? Yes, to an extent. To elaborate, countries that are more well off than others do have some ethical responsibilities to their fellow countries. Politically, more powerful countries are responsible for assisting weaker countries in international matters such as negotiations, times of war, and crises. In other words, they ought to defend/help the underdog. Similarly, richer countries have an obligation to assist poorer countries in meeting the basic needs of its people. If people in a poor country are going hungry, richer countries should send aid. However, there's a limit to what one country should do for another without infringing on their sovereignty, which is an issue that has risen again and again, particuraly in the Middle East. One example of this is the issue of President Omer Hassan Al-Bashir arrest for war crimes. The press release stated "Many countries...who critizize the Court for this move were all saying that is is polically motivated that it is infringing on the sovereignty of Sudan...".

Some view this issue in two extremes. One extreme is an entirely hands off policy. They believe that poorer countries should not receive foreign aid, that they should pull themselves up by their own bootstraps. While this is a fair view, it is not always good to adopt. Some countries simply cannot help themselves; they need support to get them to a place where they can pick themselves up. The other end of the spectrum is that everybody needs all the help they can get, and that a powerful country (for instance, the United States of America) should be as involved in a country as possible. Once again, this is not good because this is considered infringing on a country's sovereignty. A country needs to operate without assistance in the long-term future. Forcing unwanted aid and assistance on a country creates resentment, tension and is counter productive. Therefore, striking a fine balance between ignoring the situation and mothering the country is critical. It's said that if you give a man a fish, he eats for a day. If you teach him to fish, he eats for a lifetime.

United Nations. Department of Public Information. PRESS CONFERNECE BY PERMANANT REPRESENTATIVE OF SUDAN ON INERNATIONAL CRIMANAL COURT'S ARREST OF PRESIDENT OMER HASSAN AL-BASHIR. United Nations. 4 Mar. 2009. Web. 21 Aug. 2010.

I am responding to question 6

What might it meant to "win" in world politics? A position that is commonly taken is the "I win, you lose" attitude that is so commonplace in our society. The idea is that one party (or in the case of global politics, a country) totally trumps another (in scenarios of negotiation or winning a war, for example). However, a better, fairer position to take could be the idea of a "I win and you win" situation in which all parties come to a compromise that satisfies most of the needs and wants of every party involved.

Compromise is usually the best way to resolve an issue or crisis, as demonstrated many times throughout history. The opposite way doesn't always give the best result. Huge wars result in hardship and sadness, and can be avoided. For example, when North and South Vietnam conflicted, they did not resolve the issue with peaceful methods (though attempts were made); instead, bloody battles resulted. If the peace talks had prevailed, the Vietnam War might have been avoided.

Not everyone would agree that compromise is the best method in politics and negotiation, or that compromise equates "victory" in global politics. Some would argue in favor of the idea the victory means one party is above the others. The Oxford English dictionary defines the word "win" as: "...gain, acquisition,profit; advantage...subdue and take possession of...be of higher value than...". It is therefore understandable why some would take an "I win, you lose" position with regard to world politics. In addition, one could make the objection that compromise does not satisfy everyone's wants and needs fully, and that there would always be nuggets of unresolved issues under the promise. This is very possible and has happened before in history. (The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been going on for decades, despite the best efforts of the world powers to resolve it.) However, in most cases, it is possible to challenge the unsatisfaction and underlying grudges. A good compromise would make both parties happy with what they are gaining and content if everything doesn't go their way. It is possible in world politics that the definition of the word "win" can be changed.

I am responding to blog question number 3.

International sporting events such as the Olympics and the World Cup have absolutely massive audiences. Almost the entire world is focused on that one thing. A diplomat could never hope to have that many people paying attention to them at once. For that reason I feel that countries should be very aware of how their national sports teams perform at such events. If a team does well, it can create a sense of unity and common bond for the people of that country. One example that portrays a situation similar to this is, in this years World Cup, all of the African countries put their support across country lines to back Ghana, once they were the only African country left in. Also, depending on how a team acts, whether they win or loose, could be important as well. If a team acts rude and doesn’t work well together people from other areas of the world might interpret that as how the rest of the country is, too. The flip side of this is, if the team is unified and are good sports that would be what came to people’s minds when they thought about that country as a whole. It is not only the team as a unit that a country should pay attention to at these events, but also the individual athletes. An athlete can become a very powerful spokesperson for a certain cause and can be seen as a face for an entire country. States should pay close attention to this, to be aware of how they are being represented to the rest of the world.