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.
Friday, July 30, 2010
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.
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.
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.
Saturday, July 17, 2010
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.
Monday, July 5, 2010
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?
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?
Thursday, July 1, 2010
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)