Question 6:

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 actual world politics, I think winning would be considered controlling the areas of the world that are significant to your particular nation and doing so peacefully. There probably wouldn't be a certain winning point but there could be a point in which most of the countries goals are slowly being accomplished, which could be considered winning. However, if the goals of a certain nation are being accomplished with much force, damaging lives and futures of various peoples, the "win" would not be legitimate. The more diplomacy involved in the accomplishments of the country, the closer they will become to "winning".

Question 5:

5. Think back to our game of Diplimatic Risk. What resources or opportunities would you have needed in order tp fulfill your objectives? What difference would those resources or opportunities have made?

When thinking back to our game, I think the most crucial thing that I would have needed in order to fulfill my objective would be time. My objective was to control ten adjacent countries. My special power was that I was able to attack someone without going through the process of declaring war. I had taken over a few separate groups of countries but needed another round to declare war on another power, so I would be able to take over their countries. The alliance that I had was very useful and I was able to make a deal in order to trade over countries that were important for me. However, if I had the opportunity to play another round, I would have declared war and possibly come closer to fulfilling my objective.

Question 1:

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

In my opinion, the world would be a much easier place to live in if everyone spoke the same language. This would probably prevent many world wars because there would be less misunderstandings between countries. Each nation would understand the culture and customs of the others and wouldn't have to second guess the actions of another nation. Diplomats would understand exactly what another representative from a different nation was trying to explain without any doubts. Diplomats would not have to worry about figuring out a direct translation from one language to the other. Requests would be very specific and therefor problems could possibly be solved easier.

5th question answer

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?

In the game Diplomatic Risk I would have used the sanction to move my troop to Canada and then eventually taken the territories marisa had and taken over the whole of the United States of America. If Marisa had attacked me I may have used my secret power of sabotage to prevent me from being attacked. I would also have had to gain more territories from other people to be able to have the 15 or more territories I needed.

People may criticize the fact that this is not possible but they don't realize that what happens in this game is not real. Also I never actually said that I was actually going to take all of the United States of America or use my secret power against a possible attacker.

3rd question answer

Should states care about the performance of their national team at a global sporting competition, such as the Olympics or the World Cup? Why or why not?

I feel that states should care because these are people who have been selected by the state to become representatives. I really can't see any reason why states wouldn't care. There are no reasons to suggest why states wouldn't care. The teams are people who are professionals and are experienced. It is not like they are sending people who would make the state look bad. The only criticism that would occur would be when states send people who have a previous record of bad behavior whilst representing the state in anything.

In a global sporting event it is even more important because it really does matter how the state looks. If the state looks bad then there is a good chance that the coach doesn't care enough about the team. There is also the chance that the government is corrupt and the diplomacy is not as good as it should be.

Answer to Question 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?


To complete my objective for the game of Diplomatic Risk, I would have had to use the opportunity of my ability (Guerrilla warfare) to recapture Russia as soon as it was taken from me. I would have also had to have used my chance to begin war with the red and green players to capture North Europe and the other Western Territory. I would have also had to cut my alliance with the blue player and started a war with them for Afghanistan.

The opportunities I had and the resource of my ability would have allowed me to get a lead and maybe it would have allowed me a chance to win depending on what the other players did.

Answer to Question 3:

Should states care about the performance of their national team at a global sporting competition, such as the Olympics or the World Cup? Why or why not?


I believe that states should care somewhat about their nations teams but not enough to the point where if the team fails at something that they are publicly humiliated.

The way teams interact on the field as well as off the field is like how the states interact during diplomatic meets. If a state is strict on their team then they most likely are going to be strict in their diplomatic views. If a team was to fail in their nations eyes because they lose a game and are humiliated because of it then that speaks a lot about how the nation looks to the rest of the world.

If the nation doesn’t mind as because their team tried their best and represented their nation well by how they played and by how they treated the other team then that would make the nation look better in the diplomatic views of other nations.

I believe that it would be best if national teams were able to represent their nations in both the sport and their diplomatic views without the option of being criticized for one loss. They should be the bringers of good faith and hope, not of bad faith and deceit.

Answer 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.

I believe that if everyone spoke the same language then there would be less peace than would actually be expected.
Even though having different languages in the world does cause issues due to the language barrier there are ways that we can get around that in communication. It is because we have the different languages that we actually are able to try and work toward the peace that we desire.

If everyone spoke the same language then there would be a problem with privacy between countries. The reason I believe that is because if you had someone visiting from another country and you both spoke the same language and they overheard something, that they can understand, and it was misunderstood then there would be a disagreement that would arise. From there if it was accidentally released to the public it could spread to a worldwide problem.
If it reached that level then there would be a very slim chance of ever reaching a peace agreement, because of a misunderstanding that could be understood by everyone.

Therefore many languages instead of one main one are the best thing for our world and our struggle for peace.

1st question answer

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

In my own opinion if everybody did speak the same language there is still the possibility that miscommunication could happen. Although everyone could understand each other I think that diplomats wouldn't have the experience of learning a new language even though it is still a new culture. I can't also see that everyone speaking the same language would resolve anything because there could be some religions where things could be written in other languages and so nobody could really read what the scriptures say.

People may criticize this because many people would say that having everyone speak the same language is impossible. This may not be true as such because all it would really take is for the governments of those countries to introduce english language programs and hire teachers who are willing to teach the language.

Blog Discussion Questions

As promised, here are all nine of the blog discussion questions.

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

2. Short of war, how might a state and its authorized diplomatic representatives work to achieve some broadly desirable goal, like the promotion of human rights or democracy?

3. Should states care about the performance of their national team at a global sporting competition, such as the Olympics or the World Cup? Why or why not?

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?

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?

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

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

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? What if these two goals conflict -- which should predominate?

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?

Greetings

This is the class blog for the NSLC "International Diplomacy" course in the second session of Summer 2010 (SIS-102 N13/N14). This blog will be the primary way that enrolled students keep the class discussion going outside of the classroom, and also the way that students will fulfill the "online engagement" portions of their semester grade.