Current Issues-Foreign Policy
9 views
Skip to first unread message
Mr. J.
Oct 8, 2010, 12:32:42 PM10/8/10
to RHS GLOBAL ISSUES 2010
Define diplomacy. After reviewing the various "Tools of Diplomacy"
that some nations use to accomplish their goals on the world stage
(Starting on
page 15-4 of your Current Issues Book), describe the one you think is
the most effective method and why?
that some nations use to accomplish their goals on the world stage
(Starting on
page 15-4 of your Current Issues Book), describe the one you think is
the most effective method and why?
Christine
Oct 9, 2010, 2:02:31 PM10/9/10
to RHS GLOBAL ISSUES 2010
Diplomacy is the managing of negotiations between countries'
government officials and the relations. After reviewing the various
"tools of diplomacy" that some nations use, I believe that the most
effective method is multilateralism. This method involves other
countries communicating with other countries. I believe that this
method seems to be the most effective, because it creates
"international cooperation." Sometimes, when things are done
unilateralism, it can create conflicts between countries. Because the
one country chose to act alone, it could create opposition from other
nations. Communication between countries can cause good relations with
other countries and as Ikenberry, an international relations scholar
at Princeton, argues that "effective diplomacy" could replace military
action. Of course, a nation can take its own actions; they still have
their right to their own private decision, but generally, I believe
that multilateralism and diplomacy would create better relations and
fewer hard feelings between countries.
government officials and the relations. After reviewing the various
"tools of diplomacy" that some nations use, I believe that the most
effective method is multilateralism. This method involves other
countries communicating with other countries. I believe that this
method seems to be the most effective, because it creates
"international cooperation." Sometimes, when things are done
unilateralism, it can create conflicts between countries. Because the
one country chose to act alone, it could create opposition from other
nations. Communication between countries can cause good relations with
other countries and as Ikenberry, an international relations scholar
at Princeton, argues that "effective diplomacy" could replace military
action. Of course, a nation can take its own actions; they still have
their right to their own private decision, but generally, I believe
that multilateralism and diplomacy would create better relations and
fewer hard feelings between countries.
Joelle Khouri
Oct 9, 2010, 5:37:09 PM10/9/10
to RHS GLOBAL ISSUES 2010
Diplomacy is basically peaceful communication between nations. After
reading the section on “Tools of Democracy” in my Current Issues book,
I feel that multilateralism is the most effective method.
Multilateralism involves cooperation and the use of international
organizations, such as the UN, to make and enforce decisions.
Unilateralism, on the other hand, is making foreign policy decisions
without the support or approval of other countries. While multilateral
decisions take longer to make, since a consensus must be reached by
all nations involved, I think that it is worth the wait. Rushing into
things is never good, and using a multilateral approach guarantees
that there will be international support of each decision. With
unilateralism, there is always the risk of upsetting other nations,
which can cause alliances to break apart and resentment towards a
country’s policies. However, I do understand those who criticize the
UN as being ineffective, and I believe that reforms should be made.
While I don’t know much about it, the absolute veto power of Russia
and China seems a little unreasonable. Furthermore, while the UN is
not a perfect organization, it is not the only option in multilateral
decisions, and I believe that, all things considered, multilateralism
is a better approach than unilateralism.
reading the section on “Tools of Democracy” in my Current Issues book,
I feel that multilateralism is the most effective method.
Multilateralism involves cooperation and the use of international
organizations, such as the UN, to make and enforce decisions.
Unilateralism, on the other hand, is making foreign policy decisions
without the support or approval of other countries. While multilateral
decisions take longer to make, since a consensus must be reached by
all nations involved, I think that it is worth the wait. Rushing into
things is never good, and using a multilateral approach guarantees
that there will be international support of each decision. With
unilateralism, there is always the risk of upsetting other nations,
which can cause alliances to break apart and resentment towards a
country’s policies. However, I do understand those who criticize the
UN as being ineffective, and I believe that reforms should be made.
While I don’t know much about it, the absolute veto power of Russia
and China seems a little unreasonable. Furthermore, while the UN is
not a perfect organization, it is not the only option in multilateral
decisions, and I believe that, all things considered, multilateralism
is a better approach than unilateralism.
Dan Maxwell
Oct 9, 2010, 5:43:25 PM10/9/10
to RHS GLOBAL ISSUES 2010
Diplomacy is defined as the conduct of negotiations by government
officials. There are basically two main "tools of diplomacy":
Unilateralism and multilateralism. Unilateralism is when a country
acts by itself without consent of other nations, enabling a decision
to be made quickly but with more risk. Multilateralism is a strategy
in which a group of countries cooperate and make decisions based on a
general consensus. This strategy is very powerful because it "carries
the combined weight of much of the world (Close Up Press 15-4).
However, because it requires a consensus the decision making process
is slow. After reviewing the various "Tools of Diplomacy", I believe
that multilateralism is the more effective method. I think this
because its positives far outweigh its negatives. Multilateralism
involves many countries, so whichever action is chosen, it will be a
very powerful action backed by many powerful countries. Take the UN
for example. When the UN decides to put sanctions on Iran's nuclear
program, the sanctions are backed by many powerful countries. Another
reason why multilateralism is the more effective method is because it
brings countries together, not splits them apart. When a country acts
along with other countries, they all cooperate and get along. However,
when one country does its own thing without the consent of other
countries, tension can be created. The only benefit to unilateralism
is speed, and even that factor can be leveled out if lack of speed is
compensated with power backed by multiple countries. For these
reasons, I believe multilateralism is the most effective tool of
diplomacy.
officials. There are basically two main "tools of diplomacy":
Unilateralism and multilateralism. Unilateralism is when a country
acts by itself without consent of other nations, enabling a decision
to be made quickly but with more risk. Multilateralism is a strategy
in which a group of countries cooperate and make decisions based on a
general consensus. This strategy is very powerful because it "carries
the combined weight of much of the world (Close Up Press 15-4).
However, because it requires a consensus the decision making process
is slow. After reviewing the various "Tools of Diplomacy", I believe
that multilateralism is the more effective method. I think this
because its positives far outweigh its negatives. Multilateralism
involves many countries, so whichever action is chosen, it will be a
very powerful action backed by many powerful countries. Take the UN
for example. When the UN decides to put sanctions on Iran's nuclear
program, the sanctions are backed by many powerful countries. Another
reason why multilateralism is the more effective method is because it
brings countries together, not splits them apart. When a country acts
along with other countries, they all cooperate and get along. However,
when one country does its own thing without the consent of other
countries, tension can be created. The only benefit to unilateralism
is speed, and even that factor can be leveled out if lack of speed is
compensated with power backed by multiple countries. For these
reasons, I believe multilateralism is the most effective tool of
diplomacy.
Adam
Oct 10, 2010, 5:47:07 PM10/10/10
to RHS GLOBAL ISSUES 2010
Diplomacy is the conduct of negotiations and other relations between
the government officials of nations. After reviewing the "Tools of
Diplomacy", I believe that the most effective method would be
bilateralism. In this method, two countries negotiate with each other
in order to make decisions about their foreign policies. I believe
that this method would be the most effective because it has some of
the benefits from unilateralism and multilateralism. The benefit of
unilateralism is that one could act quickly. In bilateralism, Country
A would only have to discuss its actions with Country B, and that
wouldn't take nearly as long as multilateralism. Multilateralism is
beneficial because when one acts, all of the other countries have
agreed with it and are there to back up the country's actions. This
could also occur in bilateralism. If two powerful nations teamed up,
like the US and England, they would be able to back each other up and
defend each other when the other country is in need. One problem that
unilateralism has is that a one's actions could anger other countries
and have their allies decide to stop being their allies. In
bilateralism, the two countries would have made their decision
together. Therefore, the countries would still have at least one
powerful ally. For these reasons, I believe that bilateralism is the
most effective method that a nation could use to accomplish their
goals on the world stage.
the government officials of nations. After reviewing the "Tools of
Diplomacy", I believe that the most effective method would be
bilateralism. In this method, two countries negotiate with each other
in order to make decisions about their foreign policies. I believe
that this method would be the most effective because it has some of
the benefits from unilateralism and multilateralism. The benefit of
unilateralism is that one could act quickly. In bilateralism, Country
A would only have to discuss its actions with Country B, and that
wouldn't take nearly as long as multilateralism. Multilateralism is
beneficial because when one acts, all of the other countries have
agreed with it and are there to back up the country's actions. This
could also occur in bilateralism. If two powerful nations teamed up,
like the US and England, they would be able to back each other up and
defend each other when the other country is in need. One problem that
unilateralism has is that a one's actions could anger other countries
and have their allies decide to stop being their allies. In
bilateralism, the two countries would have made their decision
together. Therefore, the countries would still have at least one
powerful ally. For these reasons, I believe that bilateralism is the
most effective method that a nation could use to accomplish their
goals on the world stage.
Lindsay Korzekwa
Oct 10, 2010, 6:16:45 PM10/10/10
to RHS GLOBAL ISSUES 2010
Diplomacy is the communication that takes place between different
countries, and is a way of solving international problems without the
use of military action. There are two basic forms: unilateralism and
multilateralism. When a nation acts unilaterally, it does so without
the consent of other states. This avoids creating a consensus, thus
allowing decisions to be made more quickly, but it holds less weight
in the eyes of the rest of the world. It is also very easy to offend
other parties, as there is only one country participation in the
decision-making process, and other points of view are not taken into
consideration. This can lead to strained relations between once
friendly countries, and hurt alliances. Multilateralism, while more
tedious, magnifies the power of each country involved and can make a
decision more likely to be followed. It ensures that other ideas are
being taken into account, and helps to promote international peace. I
believe that this is the more effective way of getting things done
because, even thought it is a longer process, the lost time is made up
for with the support of the rest of the world.
countries, and is a way of solving international problems without the
use of military action. There are two basic forms: unilateralism and
multilateralism. When a nation acts unilaterally, it does so without
the consent of other states. This avoids creating a consensus, thus
allowing decisions to be made more quickly, but it holds less weight
in the eyes of the rest of the world. It is also very easy to offend
other parties, as there is only one country participation in the
decision-making process, and other points of view are not taken into
consideration. This can lead to strained relations between once
friendly countries, and hurt alliances. Multilateralism, while more
tedious, magnifies the power of each country involved and can make a
decision more likely to be followed. It ensures that other ideas are
being taken into account, and helps to promote international peace. I
believe that this is the more effective way of getting things done
because, even thought it is a longer process, the lost time is made up
for with the support of the rest of the world.
Alison Mosier-Mills
Oct 10, 2010, 8:39:53 PM10/10/10
to RHS GLOBAL ISSUES 2010
Diplomacy is an approach to international relations in which countries
address world issues through discussion and debate, rather than
through military intervention. Diplomacy can be divided into two
subcategories: unilateralism, in which a country acts upon its own
interest without consulting other nations of the world or the UN
Security Council, and multilateralism, in which countries communicate
with each other. To assess the effectiveness of either one is quite a
difficult task because, while one may work better in theory, the
outcome depends strongly on the actual situation at hand. However, I
have come to the conclusion that multilateralism achieves greater
results. Throughout history, humans have made decisions based upon
what they want and what they'll get in return, and many of the
international issues today stem from different countries' varying
interests. For example, this chapter discussed our controversial
presence in the Middle East, and raised an important question: do we
really want democracy in the Middle East or are we there solely to
protect our oil interests? Because every country has a different
agenda for what would be "best" for its people, the world would be a
disaster if unilateralism was the sole means of diplomacy, because
every nation would simply act on its own interest and conflict would
inevitably ensue. Without communication between nations, chaos and
military intervention may lead to unnecessary casualties. Though each
country may not get what it desires, international checks are required
so that peace can be sustained. We have to remember the cliché that we
"share the planet", so unilateral actions made by one nation can have
drastic effects on others. This highlights the necessity for
multilateralism.
address world issues through discussion and debate, rather than
through military intervention. Diplomacy can be divided into two
subcategories: unilateralism, in which a country acts upon its own
interest without consulting other nations of the world or the UN
Security Council, and multilateralism, in which countries communicate
with each other. To assess the effectiveness of either one is quite a
difficult task because, while one may work better in theory, the
outcome depends strongly on the actual situation at hand. However, I
have come to the conclusion that multilateralism achieves greater
results. Throughout history, humans have made decisions based upon
what they want and what they'll get in return, and many of the
international issues today stem from different countries' varying
interests. For example, this chapter discussed our controversial
presence in the Middle East, and raised an important question: do we
really want democracy in the Middle East or are we there solely to
protect our oil interests? Because every country has a different
agenda for what would be "best" for its people, the world would be a
disaster if unilateralism was the sole means of diplomacy, because
every nation would simply act on its own interest and conflict would
inevitably ensue. Without communication between nations, chaos and
military intervention may lead to unnecessary casualties. Though each
country may not get what it desires, international checks are required
so that peace can be sustained. We have to remember the cliché that we
"share the planet", so unilateral actions made by one nation can have
drastic effects on others. This highlights the necessity for
multilateralism.
Irina Ahn
Oct 10, 2010, 11:12:02 PM10/10/10
to RHS GLOBAL ISSUES 2010
Diplomacy is the process of government officials making negotiations
and discussing other relations with government officials of other
nations. After reviewing the various "Tools of Diplomacy," I believe
that multilateralism is the most effective method. Although
multilateralism occurs at a slower rate and is limited by competing
interests, it revolves around the concerns and policies of a majority
of the world. Multilateralism is when countires cooperate with each
other on an international scale to resolve concerns and relies on the
UN to reach solutions and enforce compromises and decisions made by
the multiple nations that agreed. Unilateralism, on the other hand,
occurs when one country acts on its own on decisions about foreign
policy without the support or agreement of other nations, endangering
its alliances and foreign policies with other nations. Also,
bilateralism, although is more effective than unilateralism, it still
is a bit less effective than multilateralism, in my opinion.
Bilateralism is when two countries work with each other on agreements
and decisions. While quicker in pace than multilateralism, it still
does not abide by as many countries policies as it would if made by
multilateralism. If used with a strong allie, bilateralism would be
effective when losing an allie, there would still be a strong allie to
support and help protect country A. But in my opinion, even if it
takes longer, multilateralism is the most effective method to use
regarding foreign policies.
and discussing other relations with government officials of other
nations. After reviewing the various "Tools of Diplomacy," I believe
that multilateralism is the most effective method. Although
multilateralism occurs at a slower rate and is limited by competing
interests, it revolves around the concerns and policies of a majority
of the world. Multilateralism is when countires cooperate with each
other on an international scale to resolve concerns and relies on the
UN to reach solutions and enforce compromises and decisions made by
the multiple nations that agreed. Unilateralism, on the other hand,
occurs when one country acts on its own on decisions about foreign
policy without the support or agreement of other nations, endangering
its alliances and foreign policies with other nations. Also,
bilateralism, although is more effective than unilateralism, it still
is a bit less effective than multilateralism, in my opinion.
Bilateralism is when two countries work with each other on agreements
and decisions. While quicker in pace than multilateralism, it still
does not abide by as many countries policies as it would if made by
multilateralism. If used with a strong allie, bilateralism would be
effective when losing an allie, there would still be a strong allie to
support and help protect country A. But in my opinion, even if it
takes longer, multilateralism is the most effective method to use
regarding foreign policies.
Matt Ming
Oct 11, 2010, 6:32:48 AM10/11/10
to RHS GLOBAL ISSUES 2010
Diplomacy is negotiating and working with other countries to attempt
to form a consensus or compromise before taking direct action to
resolve a problem. After reading about the “Tools of Diplomacy”, I
have found that there are essentially two methods of diplomacy that
nations employ: unilateralism and multilateralism. Unilateralism is
when a country acts independently, without the support or approval of
other countries. Such action enables swift, although possibly
unpopular and incorrect decisions. For example, North Korea is
considered to be a country that acts unilaterally because it makes its
own decisions without consulting other nations and without regard for
international agreements. The other form of diplomacy is
multilateralism. Multilateralism is when a country acts with the
backing of other countries rather than by itself. The course of
action may be determined through an agreement mediated by
international agencies such as the UN. The Kyoto Protocol, which
focused on limiting the effects of global climate change, was
discussed and approved by many nations. I feel that multilateralism is
the more effective of the two methods. Although multilateralism may
be slower in accomplishing the task at hand, it invites other
countries to voice their opinions and provide different perspectives
about the objective. In addition, a coalition of voices is stronger
than a single voice. Unilateralism can lead to rash decisions that
upset other nations, and can isolate the nation that takes such
unilateral action. Multilateralism ensures that other countries
approve of the county’s methods and will support it in its cause, not
only leading to more popular decisions, but also a higher success rate
because of the cooperation of many nations.
to form a consensus or compromise before taking direct action to
resolve a problem. After reading about the “Tools of Diplomacy”, I
have found that there are essentially two methods of diplomacy that
nations employ: unilateralism and multilateralism. Unilateralism is
when a country acts independently, without the support or approval of
other countries. Such action enables swift, although possibly
unpopular and incorrect decisions. For example, North Korea is
considered to be a country that acts unilaterally because it makes its
own decisions without consulting other nations and without regard for
international agreements. The other form of diplomacy is
multilateralism. Multilateralism is when a country acts with the
backing of other countries rather than by itself. The course of
action may be determined through an agreement mediated by
international agencies such as the UN. The Kyoto Protocol, which
focused on limiting the effects of global climate change, was
discussed and approved by many nations. I feel that multilateralism is
the more effective of the two methods. Although multilateralism may
be slower in accomplishing the task at hand, it invites other
countries to voice their opinions and provide different perspectives
about the objective. In addition, a coalition of voices is stronger
than a single voice. Unilateralism can lead to rash decisions that
upset other nations, and can isolate the nation that takes such
unilateral action. Multilateralism ensures that other countries
approve of the county’s methods and will support it in its cause, not
only leading to more popular decisions, but also a higher success rate
because of the cooperation of many nations.
Hannah North
Oct 11, 2010, 11:55:50 AM10/11/10
to RHS GLOBAL ISSUES 2010
Diplomacy, in a general sense of the word, is the communication that
takes place between different nations in regards to negotiations and
relations. Diplomacy is an essential element for any major world power
to possess because it involves being able to form positive relations
with other countires that one day can lend support to your own nation
if you find yourself in need. After carfully reviewing the "Tools of
Diplomacy", I came to the conclusion that multilateralism is the most
promising path to take in terms of foreign policy because it
encourages active communication between nations which in turn
stimulates positive relations. By partaking in unilateralism, it gives
other countries a more negative view of the U.S because it makes us
look like we have no respect for international law and therefore
causes other nations to harbor resentment towards the us. As a nation,
the last thing we want is to alienate possibly allies and trading
partners by not consulting them before we make a big decision such as
invading another country. The only way for the U.S to prosper and
thrive is if we receive the aid of other countries. By endorsing
multilateralism, we are able to create and keep long lasting allies as
well as promote a the image of the fair and balanced nation the U.S
undoubtably is to the people of the world.
takes place between different nations in regards to negotiations and
relations. Diplomacy is an essential element for any major world power
to possess because it involves being able to form positive relations
with other countires that one day can lend support to your own nation
if you find yourself in need. After carfully reviewing the "Tools of
Diplomacy", I came to the conclusion that multilateralism is the most
promising path to take in terms of foreign policy because it
encourages active communication between nations which in turn
stimulates positive relations. By partaking in unilateralism, it gives
other countries a more negative view of the U.S because it makes us
look like we have no respect for international law and therefore
causes other nations to harbor resentment towards the us. As a nation,
the last thing we want is to alienate possibly allies and trading
partners by not consulting them before we make a big decision such as
invading another country. The only way for the U.S to prosper and
thrive is if we receive the aid of other countries. By endorsing
multilateralism, we are able to create and keep long lasting allies as
well as promote a the image of the fair and balanced nation the U.S
undoubtably is to the people of the world.
Becky Maz
Oct 11, 2010, 3:32:12 PM10/11/10
to RHS GLOBAL ISSUES 2010
Diplomacy is defined as the conduct by government officials of
negotiations and other relations between nations by peaceful means. In
the Current Issues book, there are two methods of foreign policy that
are described- these two methods being multilateralism and
unilateralism. After reviewing what the book has to say, I cannot say
that I agree with either choice fully, but I do agree with one of the
quotes mentioned in the book. The book quotes Joseph Nye when he says,
"If I can get you to want what I want, then I do not have to force you
to do what you do not want." What mr. Nye is saying is, that peaceful
negotiations are effective until a certain point. If another country
is really being unreasonable, and we feel that there is a need to step
in because said country poses a threat to either ourselves, other
nations, or its own civilians, then the U.S. is almost obligated to
step in as one of the most influencial world power. So, because of my
point of view, I suppose that I would have to alter my definition of
diplomacy by saying that it is the conduct of government officials of
negotiations and other relations between nations, usually and/or
hopefully through peaceful means.
negotiations and other relations between nations by peaceful means. In
the Current Issues book, there are two methods of foreign policy that
are described- these two methods being multilateralism and
unilateralism. After reviewing what the book has to say, I cannot say
that I agree with either choice fully, but I do agree with one of the
quotes mentioned in the book. The book quotes Joseph Nye when he says,
"If I can get you to want what I want, then I do not have to force you
to do what you do not want." What mr. Nye is saying is, that peaceful
negotiations are effective until a certain point. If another country
is really being unreasonable, and we feel that there is a need to step
in because said country poses a threat to either ourselves, other
nations, or its own civilians, then the U.S. is almost obligated to
step in as one of the most influencial world power. So, because of my
point of view, I suppose that I would have to alter my definition of
diplomacy by saying that it is the conduct of government officials of
negotiations and other relations between nations, usually and/or
hopefully through peaceful means.
kevin
Oct 11, 2010, 4:49:14 PM10/11/10
to RHS GLOBAL ISSUES 2010
The definition of diplomacy is the conduct of negotiations and other
relations between nations. I believe that the most effective method
for a nation to use to accomplish its goals on the world stage depends
entirely upon the strength of the nation, the ambition of its goal,
and the feelings of the other nations. For the most part, larger
nations that are taking on smaller accomplishments would be better
served by unilateralism and its speed and precision. A multilateral
approach to a simple problem would be too difficult and too slow,
hampered by superior motives and hidden agendas, and ultimately
unnecessary. Additonally, if a nation feels its goal would be opposed
by other countries to a point where multilateralism would be
impossible, unilateralism might be a good way to accomplish things. On
the flip side, unilateralism in such a case would be dangerous for the
enemies it might create. In general, multilateralism is a better
method when 1) a goal is too large for any one nation, or 2) when
friendly nations are willing to minimize negotiations and act quickly
for a common goal.
relations between nations. I believe that the most effective method
for a nation to use to accomplish its goals on the world stage depends
entirely upon the strength of the nation, the ambition of its goal,
and the feelings of the other nations. For the most part, larger
nations that are taking on smaller accomplishments would be better
served by unilateralism and its speed and precision. A multilateral
approach to a simple problem would be too difficult and too slow,
hampered by superior motives and hidden agendas, and ultimately
unnecessary. Additonally, if a nation feels its goal would be opposed
by other countries to a point where multilateralism would be
impossible, unilateralism might be a good way to accomplish things. On
the flip side, unilateralism in such a case would be dangerous for the
enemies it might create. In general, multilateralism is a better
method when 1) a goal is too large for any one nation, or 2) when
friendly nations are willing to minimize negotiations and act quickly
for a common goal.
Alex Kim
Oct 11, 2010, 5:09:17 PM10/11/10
to RHS GLOBAL ISSUES 2010
Diplomacy is the concept of setting up a formal embassy in a foreign
county in order to discuss U.S. interests, assist U.S. citizens in the
foreign nation, and negotiate economic and political issues. The U.S.
currently has diplomatic relations with 190 countries, (that is, the
U.S. has a formal embassy with diplomats in those nations.) The UN is
one forum where countries meet to discuss pressing world issues.
Various tasks are completed faster when taken on by one country,
unilaterally. However, for bigger issues that a country would need
support to face, they must act multilaterally. Ultimately,
multilateralism is more effective when facing the world's problems,
because of the need for support among countries. For example, no one
nation can fight Global Climate Change on its own, and almost no
country around the world is able to fight a war by itself. The U.S.,
being a nation that can fight a war by itself, needs to take just as
much caution as other nations before it acts unilaterally. With
multilateralism, a country knows that it has support before it tries
to accomplish a task. This support is vital because with it, that
country has a support web in case they do not succeed 100% in their
mission. Even though unilateralism may sometimes be completely
necessary to accomplish a task, countries have a responsibility to
exercise extreme caution before acting alone, because the consequences
can be dire. In most situations, acting multilaterally is a much
better option.
county in order to discuss U.S. interests, assist U.S. citizens in the
foreign nation, and negotiate economic and political issues. The U.S.
currently has diplomatic relations with 190 countries, (that is, the
U.S. has a formal embassy with diplomats in those nations.) The UN is
one forum where countries meet to discuss pressing world issues.
Various tasks are completed faster when taken on by one country,
unilaterally. However, for bigger issues that a country would need
support to face, they must act multilaterally. Ultimately,
multilateralism is more effective when facing the world's problems,
because of the need for support among countries. For example, no one
nation can fight Global Climate Change on its own, and almost no
country around the world is able to fight a war by itself. The U.S.,
being a nation that can fight a war by itself, needs to take just as
much caution as other nations before it acts unilaterally. With
multilateralism, a country knows that it has support before it tries
to accomplish a task. This support is vital because with it, that
country has a support web in case they do not succeed 100% in their
mission. Even though unilateralism may sometimes be completely
necessary to accomplish a task, countries have a responsibility to
exercise extreme caution before acting alone, because the consequences
can be dire. In most situations, acting multilaterally is a much
better option.
k.Borkovitz
Oct 11, 2010, 5:18:35 PM10/11/10
to RHS GLOBAL ISSUES 2010
Diplomacy is essentially the negotiations that occur between nations.
In order for these nations to achieve their goals, they use tactics
such as “Tools of Diplomacy”. As indentified in the book, these tools
entail two methods in which nations can get what they want:
unilateralism and multilateralism. Unilateralism is identified when a
country makes a decision without input or aid from other countries.
Multilateralism occurs when a country wants to act on a certain issue,
but seek approval from other countries before they carry out their
plans. Personally, I believe multilateralism is a smarter choice. From
the standpoint of much of the world, the United States is a bully – a
super-power that doesn’t need permission from other countries to act
on its impulses. In regards to this belief, multilateralism could be
potentially far more effective in helping the U.S. accomplish its
goals. Though multilateral negotiations may take longer because of
lack of consensus, there is a possibility that no more time would be
wasted than if a unilateral approach was taken. For example, if a
multilateral approach was successful and a unilateral one was
eventually ineffective, the long-term effect of these actions would
reveal the multilateral method of decision-making to be more
efficient.
In order for these nations to achieve their goals, they use tactics
such as “Tools of Diplomacy”. As indentified in the book, these tools
entail two methods in which nations can get what they want:
unilateralism and multilateralism. Unilateralism is identified when a
country makes a decision without input or aid from other countries.
Multilateralism occurs when a country wants to act on a certain issue,
but seek approval from other countries before they carry out their
plans. Personally, I believe multilateralism is a smarter choice. From
the standpoint of much of the world, the United States is a bully – a
super-power that doesn’t need permission from other countries to act
on its impulses. In regards to this belief, multilateralism could be
potentially far more effective in helping the U.S. accomplish its
goals. Though multilateral negotiations may take longer because of
lack of consensus, there is a possibility that no more time would be
wasted than if a unilateral approach was taken. For example, if a
multilateral approach was successful and a unilateral one was
eventually ineffective, the long-term effect of these actions would
reveal the multilateral method of decision-making to be more
efficient.
sean young
Oct 11, 2010, 5:55:46 PM10/11/10
to RHS GLOBAL ISSUES 2010
Diplomacy is defined as the art and practice of conducting
negotiations between nations. After reading over the "Tools of
Diplomacy" in the Current Issues book, I have mixed feelings about
which method is more effective. On one side is multilaterallism, where
when one country decides to do something like go to war, they must
consult the UN or other countries before doing so to gain their
approval before any action is taken. This is extremely helpful to
figure out what other countries think about the first country's
decision, as well as gaining approval from other nations before that
country invades, so those nations don't get ticked off at the fist
country for fighting. The main problem with this method is the fact
that it takes a lot of time to gain the approval of multiple nations,
so any extremely iminent terrorist threats wouldn't be able to get
stopped quickly enough.
On the other hand is unilaterallism. Unilaterallism is when
one country goes out and makes its decisions without talking to any
other nations to see what they have to say or gaining their approval.
Clearly, this move ticks these other nations off, because they feel as
if that one country was going out and doing things (these things can
be either good or bad) behind everyone's back. The upside to this is
that when a country acts unilaterally it can respond almost instantly
to a major threat, and can help prevent supposed threats from
happening.
In conclusion, I believe that unilaterallism is a good
method for stopping immediate threats, but one country must go
multilateral and consult other nations before making decisions that
don't need to be made urgently.
negotiations between nations. After reading over the "Tools of
Diplomacy" in the Current Issues book, I have mixed feelings about
which method is more effective. On one side is multilaterallism, where
when one country decides to do something like go to war, they must
consult the UN or other countries before doing so to gain their
approval before any action is taken. This is extremely helpful to
figure out what other countries think about the first country's
decision, as well as gaining approval from other nations before that
country invades, so those nations don't get ticked off at the fist
country for fighting. The main problem with this method is the fact
that it takes a lot of time to gain the approval of multiple nations,
so any extremely iminent terrorist threats wouldn't be able to get
stopped quickly enough.
On the other hand is unilaterallism. Unilaterallism is when
one country goes out and makes its decisions without talking to any
other nations to see what they have to say or gaining their approval.
Clearly, this move ticks these other nations off, because they feel as
if that one country was going out and doing things (these things can
be either good or bad) behind everyone's back. The upside to this is
that when a country acts unilaterally it can respond almost instantly
to a major threat, and can help prevent supposed threats from
happening.
In conclusion, I believe that unilaterallism is a good
method for stopping immediate threats, but one country must go
multilateral and consult other nations before making decisions that
don't need to be made urgently.
Sarah
Oct 11, 2010, 7:00:16 PM10/11/10
to RHS GLOBAL ISSUES 2010
Diplomacy is essentially the ability of countries to negotiate and
interact peacefully. According to page 15-2 of our Current Issues
book, a diplomat living in their respective country has to "monitor
U.S. interests, negotiate agreements on economic and political issues,
and assist U.S. citizens living or traveling in the country". We have
official diplomatic relations - an ambassador and diplomats in their
country - with almost every country in the world so as to communicate
best with all of them.
There are two main "Tools of Diplomacy": acting unilaterally, and
acting multilaterally. I believe that generally, though not always, it
is better to act multilaterally. We need to make sure that our actions
will not be harming other nations or their alliances with us, so we
need to communicate with them and the UN. Acting multilaterally also
allows the action to carry the support of many nations, meaning it
will be more powerful and less controversial. I also believe that when
multilateral options, like the Kyoto Protocol, are brought up, we
shouldn't let economic selfishness prevent us from joining in, because
they are very important and we can't be a world power if we can't work
with everyone else. However, there are some instances where something
is a very large - and very real and proven - threat to national
security, the environment, etc. Then it may be acceptable to act
unilaterally, if speed is needed and the president and all surrounding
him (liberal and conservative) are certain of the necessity of the
action.
interact peacefully. According to page 15-2 of our Current Issues
book, a diplomat living in their respective country has to "monitor
U.S. interests, negotiate agreements on economic and political issues,
and assist U.S. citizens living or traveling in the country". We have
official diplomatic relations - an ambassador and diplomats in their
country - with almost every country in the world so as to communicate
best with all of them.
There are two main "Tools of Diplomacy": acting unilaterally, and
acting multilaterally. I believe that generally, though not always, it
is better to act multilaterally. We need to make sure that our actions
will not be harming other nations or their alliances with us, so we
need to communicate with them and the UN. Acting multilaterally also
allows the action to carry the support of many nations, meaning it
will be more powerful and less controversial. I also believe that when
multilateral options, like the Kyoto Protocol, are brought up, we
shouldn't let economic selfishness prevent us from joining in, because
they are very important and we can't be a world power if we can't work
with everyone else. However, there are some instances where something
is a very large - and very real and proven - threat to national
security, the environment, etc. Then it may be acceptable to act
unilaterally, if speed is needed and the president and all surrounding
him (liberal and conservative) are certain of the necessity of the
action.
preeya...@live.com
Oct 11, 2010, 7:05:04 PM10/11/10
to RHS GLOBAL ISSUES 2010
Diplomacy is the management of negotiations and relationships between
two countries. After reading the section of “Tools of Diplomacy” I
believe that the most effective method to accomplish goals for a
country is multilateralism. I believe that this is the most effective
method because it allows for a second opinion, and international
interdependence. By utilizing multilateralism, a country can offer an
idea, or plan of action to a group of other countries. This allows for
the first country to get a second opinion, or suggestions from the
other countries. This may lead to a better plan, or even an abolition
of a bad idea. In unilateralism, a country acts without consulting any
other country. This may block their view of a better solution to a
problem. Also, multilateralism promotes the interdependence of
different countries. By asking a single nation to consult with other
nations before making an international decision is stops the single
country from being too powerful. It enables other countries to have a
certain sense of control, and jurisdiction over the single country. In
unilateralism, a single country is able to act without the control of
any other country. This may lead to a single country having too much
control. Multilateralism ensures that each country is slightly
dependent on at least a few others. In conclusion, I believe that the
second opinion, and international interdependence provided by
multilateralism is beneficial to not just individual countries, but to
the world as a whole.
two countries. After reading the section of “Tools of Diplomacy” I
believe that the most effective method to accomplish goals for a
country is multilateralism. I believe that this is the most effective
method because it allows for a second opinion, and international
interdependence. By utilizing multilateralism, a country can offer an
idea, or plan of action to a group of other countries. This allows for
the first country to get a second opinion, or suggestions from the
other countries. This may lead to a better plan, or even an abolition
of a bad idea. In unilateralism, a country acts without consulting any
other country. This may block their view of a better solution to a
problem. Also, multilateralism promotes the interdependence of
different countries. By asking a single nation to consult with other
nations before making an international decision is stops the single
country from being too powerful. It enables other countries to have a
certain sense of control, and jurisdiction over the single country. In
unilateralism, a single country is able to act without the control of
any other country. This may lead to a single country having too much
control. Multilateralism ensures that each country is slightly
dependent on at least a few others. In conclusion, I believe that the
second opinion, and international interdependence provided by
multilateralism is beneficial to not just individual countries, but to
the world as a whole.
Leah Coppage-Gross
Oct 11, 2010, 7:06:24 PM10/11/10
to RHS GLOBAL ISSUES 2010
Diplomacy is defined as the negotiations and relations of government
officials between countries. After reviewing the "Tools of
Diplomacy," I personally believe that acting multilaterally is the
most effective method to use when working with other countries. In
the past, the U.S. has worked unilaterally, and that has certainly
brought many criticisms from other countries. President Bush worked
very unilaterally, evidenced by his decision to invade Iraq without
approval from the UN security council, and because of this, countries
around the world have expressed opinions against the U.S. Working
multilaterally would ensure cooperation between countries, and it
would help to strengthen ties between the U.S. and other countries.
By being willing to compromise and work cooperatively with other
countries, the U.S. will probably get more positive feedback and be
able to take more action around the world with more support. Overall,
I believe that working multilaterally is the best course of action for
the U.S. to take.
> > the most effective method and why?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
officials between countries. After reviewing the "Tools of
Diplomacy," I personally believe that acting multilaterally is the
most effective method to use when working with other countries. In
the past, the U.S. has worked unilaterally, and that has certainly
brought many criticisms from other countries. President Bush worked
very unilaterally, evidenced by his decision to invade Iraq without
approval from the UN security council, and because of this, countries
around the world have expressed opinions against the U.S. Working
multilaterally would ensure cooperation between countries, and it
would help to strengthen ties between the U.S. and other countries.
By being willing to compromise and work cooperatively with other
countries, the U.S. will probably get more positive feedback and be
able to take more action around the world with more support. Overall,
I believe that working multilaterally is the best course of action for
the U.S. to take.
>
> - Show quoted text -
h2fir...@comcast.net
Oct 11, 2010, 7:07:09 PM10/11/10
to RHS GLOBAL ISSUES 2010
Diplomacy is the conduct of negotiations and other relations between
nations by government officials. After reading about the different
tools of diplomacy that nations use in negotiations, I believe that
multilateralism provides the best outcome. Multilateralism is when a
group of countries negotiate and reach a consensus together. While
bilateralism (negotiations between two countries) and unilateralism
(one country making the decision) are quicker processes,
multilateralism is a better approach in the long run because it
incoporates, or at least makes other leaders aware, of all of the
countries opinions and ideas. This will decrease the chance of nations
harboring negative feelings towards one another and make them feel
included and connected to the rest of the world. By making other
countries feel included, connected, and feel like their voice was
heard and taken into consideration, it decreases the chance that they
will become involved in conflicts with other countries, making the
world a more peaceful place. The point of diplomacy is to resolve
conflicts peacefully, and multilateralism has the greatest chance of
creating peaceful outcomes, therefore it is the most effective method
of diplomacy.
On Oct 8, 12:32 pm, "Mr. J." <glen.jaskelew...@rtsd.org> wrote:
Allie Ziegler
Oct 11, 2010, 7:56:04 PM10/11/10
to RHS GLOBAL ISSUES 2010
Diplomacy is known as the conduct of negotiations and relations
between nations by their government officials. In setting up
diplomatic relations with another country, the first country, for
example, the United States sets up a permanent embassy with an
ambassador and team of diplomats in the other country. This team of
diplomats monitors U.S. interests, negotiates agreements on political
and economic issues, and finally assist U.S. citizens living in the
country, or traveling in the country that they are stationed in.
After reading about the various "tools of diplomacy" I believe that
multilateralism is the most effective method. Multilateralism is
defined as the cooperation of multiple countries with assistance of
international institutions such as the UN, to reach a consensus and
enforce decisions. I think that this is more effective than
unilateralism because it involves multiple countries acting together
rather than acting individually without the approval and support from
the UN. Despite the fact that multilateralism decisions take a longer
time to reach, the process guarantees that each decision and action
will be backed by both the UN and other nations as well. On the other
hand, a unilateralism approach may cause irrational decisions to be
made, other nations to become upset and alliances to be broken. In
addition, acting unilaterally could potentially cause warfare and
chaos, so the better way to tackle foreign relations is to act
multilaterally. Therefore, international checks and balances are
beneficial in regards to diplomacy because even if not all countries
get what they want, they still act together to form a solution that
they agree upon.
between nations by their government officials. In setting up
diplomatic relations with another country, the first country, for
example, the United States sets up a permanent embassy with an
ambassador and team of diplomats in the other country. This team of
diplomats monitors U.S. interests, negotiates agreements on political
and economic issues, and finally assist U.S. citizens living in the
country, or traveling in the country that they are stationed in.
After reading about the various "tools of diplomacy" I believe that
multilateralism is the most effective method. Multilateralism is
defined as the cooperation of multiple countries with assistance of
international institutions such as the UN, to reach a consensus and
enforce decisions. I think that this is more effective than
unilateralism because it involves multiple countries acting together
rather than acting individually without the approval and support from
the UN. Despite the fact that multilateralism decisions take a longer
time to reach, the process guarantees that each decision and action
will be backed by both the UN and other nations as well. On the other
hand, a unilateralism approach may cause irrational decisions to be
made, other nations to become upset and alliances to be broken. In
addition, acting unilaterally could potentially cause warfare and
chaos, so the better way to tackle foreign relations is to act
multilaterally. Therefore, international checks and balances are
beneficial in regards to diplomacy because even if not all countries
get what they want, they still act together to form a solution that
they agree upon.
Yuichiro Iwamoto
Oct 11, 2010, 8:01:29 PM10/11/10
to RHS GLOBAL ISSUES 2010
Diplomacy is an non-violent method for countries to discuss topics
internationally. This is conducted by diplomats who are located all
around the world, and voice the opinions and the concerns for the
country that they represent. A major country like the United States
have embassies all over the world, in which diplomatic missions are
carried out. In the reading there were two major "Tools of Diplomacy"
mentioned. They were unilateralism and multilateralism. Simplified,
unilateralism calls for international decisions to be made singly by
the country mainly concerned with the issue, and multilateralism
requires a consensus for any international action. For example, the
attack on Iraq by the Bush administration was unilateral because it
was not done with the consent of the UN. In my opinion, I think that
unilateralism is by far the most effective method. This is because it
is almost impossible to get a consensus on a important decision that
will drastically affect the globe. Just like people have different
opinions, so do countries. Although a decision made singly by a
country may cause turmoil, I believe it is far better than spending
months to persuade IGOs such as the UN to approve international action
just to get it vetoed by one of the countries of the security council.
With that said, I also believe there are extremes to be avoided. For
example, military decisions solely based on the benefit of the
invading country should not be allowed to happen. I believe decisions
that do not cause harm to civilians nor destroy the a nation's welfare
should be made unilaterally.
internationally. This is conducted by diplomats who are located all
around the world, and voice the opinions and the concerns for the
country that they represent. A major country like the United States
have embassies all over the world, in which diplomatic missions are
carried out. In the reading there were two major "Tools of Diplomacy"
mentioned. They were unilateralism and multilateralism. Simplified,
unilateralism calls for international decisions to be made singly by
the country mainly concerned with the issue, and multilateralism
requires a consensus for any international action. For example, the
attack on Iraq by the Bush administration was unilateral because it
was not done with the consent of the UN. In my opinion, I think that
unilateralism is by far the most effective method. This is because it
is almost impossible to get a consensus on a important decision that
will drastically affect the globe. Just like people have different
opinions, so do countries. Although a decision made singly by a
country may cause turmoil, I believe it is far better than spending
months to persuade IGOs such as the UN to approve international action
just to get it vetoed by one of the countries of the security council.
With that said, I also believe there are extremes to be avoided. For
example, military decisions solely based on the benefit of the
invading country should not be allowed to happen. I believe decisions
that do not cause harm to civilians nor destroy the a nation's welfare
should be made unilaterally.
Emily Lu
Oct 11, 2010, 8:02:39 PM10/11/10
to RHS GLOBAL ISSUES 2010
Diplomacy is the practice of conducting discussions between
representatives of groups, states, countries, or other forms of
unions. There are two types of democracy: unilateral democracy and
multilateral democracy. Unilateral democracy is the making of
decisions without looking for assistance or even agreement from other
countries. This is the type of democracy that was held up during the
Bush Administration. Multilateral democracy is when one country makes
a decision consulting the opinions of other countries. Multilateral
democracy is what the Obama Administration currently supports. Between
the two, I think multilateral democracy is the more effective method.
First of all, there is, of course, the wisdom of the crowd, which says
that with a larger number of opinions on an issue, each person will
come to a decision based upon what he/she thinks is right, and the
majority is usually thought of as the better decision. This solution
may give the country who originally posed this question a whole new
view on the issue. Although multilateral democracy may be slower and
may delay results, it is probable that the results will be smoother
and more satisfactory than if only one country had made a rash
decision. Along with this, the country will also gain more support,
and assert a more authoritative appearance. With the well though-out
solutions acquired from multilateral democacy, there will be smoother
negotiations and more effective diplomacy. Instead of perhaps fighting
a costly, bloody war, "effective diplomacy can replace military
action" (Ikenberry, 15-5).
representatives of groups, states, countries, or other forms of
unions. There are two types of democracy: unilateral democracy and
multilateral democracy. Unilateral democracy is the making of
decisions without looking for assistance or even agreement from other
countries. This is the type of democracy that was held up during the
Bush Administration. Multilateral democracy is when one country makes
a decision consulting the opinions of other countries. Multilateral
democracy is what the Obama Administration currently supports. Between
the two, I think multilateral democracy is the more effective method.
First of all, there is, of course, the wisdom of the crowd, which says
that with a larger number of opinions on an issue, each person will
come to a decision based upon what he/she thinks is right, and the
majority is usually thought of as the better decision. This solution
may give the country who originally posed this question a whole new
view on the issue. Although multilateral democracy may be slower and
may delay results, it is probable that the results will be smoother
and more satisfactory than if only one country had made a rash
decision. Along with this, the country will also gain more support,
and assert a more authoritative appearance. With the well though-out
solutions acquired from multilateral democacy, there will be smoother
negotiations and more effective diplomacy. Instead of perhaps fighting
a costly, bloody war, "effective diplomacy can replace military
action" (Ikenberry, 15-5).
On Oct 8, 12:32 pm, "Mr. J." <glen.jaskelew...@rtsd.org> wrote:
dalton morris
Oct 11, 2010, 8:31:42 PM10/11/10
to RHS GLOBAL ISSUES 2010
Diplomacy is the negotiations between countries and their leaders to
try and resolve problems peacefully. After reviewing the "tools of
diplomacy" I believe that the most effective method is
multilateralism. Multilateralism is when countries talk to other
countries about decisions they are making and try to reach a general
consensus. If the world worked like this, the number of wars and acts
of violence would tremendously decrease. When countries take a more
unilateralistic approach, their country may temporarily benefit more
from the decision but other countries often get mad and thats how wars
break out. The only downfall of a multilateralistic government is that
the decisions that you make may take longer then if you just quickly
jump into something like unilateralism. Waiting for the right decision
is better than jumping into something and regretting it later, though.
Overall, I believe that multilateralism is the most effective "tool of
democracy" because most countries agree and end up happy on the
decisions that you make.
try and resolve problems peacefully. After reviewing the "tools of
diplomacy" I believe that the most effective method is
multilateralism. Multilateralism is when countries talk to other
countries about decisions they are making and try to reach a general
consensus. If the world worked like this, the number of wars and acts
of violence would tremendously decrease. When countries take a more
unilateralistic approach, their country may temporarily benefit more
from the decision but other countries often get mad and thats how wars
break out. The only downfall of a multilateralistic government is that
the decisions that you make may take longer then if you just quickly
jump into something like unilateralism. Waiting for the right decision
is better than jumping into something and regretting it later, though.
Overall, I believe that multilateralism is the most effective "tool of
democracy" because most countries agree and end up happy on the
decisions that you make.
Saad Imran
Oct 11, 2010, 8:36:42 PM10/11/10
to RHS GLOBAL ISSUES 2010
Diplomacy is negotiations between nations, and the government
officials within that nation. By reviewing the various tools of
diplomacy in our current issues book, i believe that Multilateralism
are the most effective method. Multilateralism is basically when
countries cooperate with each other when acting on a global scale.
Additionally Multilateralism relies on international institutions,
like the United Nations (UN), to enforce decisions. Multilateralism is
an effective method to accomplish their goals of diplomacy on a world
stage as there cannot be successful diplomatic relations without
cooperating with other nations. Additionally, compared to
multilateralism, in Unilateralism various governments do not cooperate/
consult with other countries, which thus can lead to conflicts or war.
additionally Multilateralism makes a uniform decision amongst the
world, which leads to all countries benefiting from the
multilateralism agreement. Lastly, Multilateralism makes all opinions
heard, and though it is rather slow it is successful in making good
negotiations. Additionally if the world works multilaterally there is
a greater chance for good ties among all nations.
officials within that nation. By reviewing the various tools of
diplomacy in our current issues book, i believe that Multilateralism
are the most effective method. Multilateralism is basically when
countries cooperate with each other when acting on a global scale.
Additionally Multilateralism relies on international institutions,
like the United Nations (UN), to enforce decisions. Multilateralism is
an effective method to accomplish their goals of diplomacy on a world
stage as there cannot be successful diplomatic relations without
cooperating with other nations. Additionally, compared to
multilateralism, in Unilateralism various governments do not cooperate/
consult with other countries, which thus can lead to conflicts or war.
additionally Multilateralism makes a uniform decision amongst the
world, which leads to all countries benefiting from the
multilateralism agreement. Lastly, Multilateralism makes all opinions
heard, and though it is rather slow it is successful in making good
negotiations. Additionally if the world works multilaterally there is
a greater chance for good ties among all nations.
Grace
Oct 11, 2010, 9:17:25 PM10/11/10
to RHS GLOBAL ISSUES 2010
Diplomacy is the conduct of government officials toward managing
negotiations and relations between countries. After reviewing the
various "Tools of Diplomacy" I have come to the conclusion that each
approach can be rendered useful relative to time and place. The
approach that is most appropriate the majority of the time is
bilateralism. Bilateralism is acting with the support of another key
country. I believe that this method is most effective because it
enables the U.S to take action with the support of an ally and allows
them to act swiftly without the constraint of competing countries
interests. In acting bilaterally the U.S can guarentee the support
and aid from the country they are acting with while avoiding the
complication of acting with multiple countries in a multilaterial
agreement. Additionally a bilateral agreement gives the U.S the
capability to act or react in a timely matter. The U.S can skip the
time it takes for the U.N to grant approval for action and act
relavantly to issues while they are at hand. A bilateral agreement
also frees the U.S from the restraint of conflicting countries
alternate motives. With the absolute veto policy Russia and China
have the capability to veto an intire proposal with their single
vote. With the greatly differeing viewpoints and allies of Russia and
China and the U.S getting granted approval to take action would be
extremly complicated and along the way ideas may have to be
comprimised. The U.S must take action with the support of an ally by
their side for support but must avoid multilateral agreements to avoid
the complicated and ineffective UN policies toward authorization.
negotiations and relations between countries. After reviewing the
various "Tools of Diplomacy" I have come to the conclusion that each
approach can be rendered useful relative to time and place. The
approach that is most appropriate the majority of the time is
bilateralism. Bilateralism is acting with the support of another key
country. I believe that this method is most effective because it
enables the U.S to take action with the support of an ally and allows
them to act swiftly without the constraint of competing countries
interests. In acting bilaterally the U.S can guarentee the support
and aid from the country they are acting with while avoiding the
complication of acting with multiple countries in a multilaterial
agreement. Additionally a bilateral agreement gives the U.S the
capability to act or react in a timely matter. The U.S can skip the
time it takes for the U.N to grant approval for action and act
relavantly to issues while they are at hand. A bilateral agreement
also frees the U.S from the restraint of conflicting countries
alternate motives. With the absolute veto policy Russia and China
have the capability to veto an intire proposal with their single
vote. With the greatly differeing viewpoints and allies of Russia and
China and the U.S getting granted approval to take action would be
extremly complicated and along the way ideas may have to be
comprimised. The U.S must take action with the support of an ally by
their side for support but must avoid multilateral agreements to avoid
the complicated and ineffective UN policies toward authorization.
jblr...@aim.com
Oct 11, 2010, 9:35:52 PM10/11/10
to RHS GLOBAL ISSUES 2010
A basic definition of “diplomacy” is the practice of conducting
negotiations between nations. At times, governments are able to avoid
war by successfully resolving issues through diplomacy. The current
Middle Eastern peace conferences represent one example of important
and volatile diplomacy efforts. There are two different “Tools of
Diplomacy” as outlined in our Current Issues Book and they are
unilateralism versus multilateralism. Unilateralism is when a nation
makes foreign policy decisions on its own without the support or
approval of other nations. Our Current Issues Book points out that
the decision to invade Iraq was made unilaterally by the U.S. because
we did not gain approval of the UN Security Council. Multilateralism
is when nations make decisions on a cooperative basis, usually through
a multination organization such as the United Nations. One of the key
advantages of unilateralism is that one nation can make a decision
more quickly and act on that decision in a short time frame.
Multilateralism can result in a much longer and slower process because
multiple nations can take a long time to agree on a plan. The
downside of this process is that an action could be too slow to be
effective. I believe that the world is becoming smaller daily through
the evolution of communication and technology. The U.S. has been a
dominating world power but articles are published all the time about
how our power and influence are decreasing. We are not the only
nation that has the knowledge and intelligence to make major decisions
that will affect our world. We went in alone in Iraq and learned that
our intelligence regarding weapons of mass destruction was incorrect.
If we waited to work through the process with the U.N. then perhaps
over 100,000 lives could have been saved and the situations in Iraq
might have been dealt with more peacefully. I strongly believe that
going forward; using multilateralism makes the most sense. We need
the combined knowledge of the nations in the world if we are to avoid
major conflicts and further unnecessary loss of life.On Oct 8,
12:32 pm, "Mr. J." <glen.jaskelew...@rtsd.org> wrote:
Claire
Oct 11, 2010, 10:03:36 PM10/11/10
to RHS GLOBAL ISSUES 2010
Diplomacy is essentially defined as the peaceful negotiations that
take place between different countries' government officials,
ultimately in order to reach a consensus without taking violent,
threatening action. As the current events book stated, the "Tools of
Diplomacy" include unilateralism as well as multilateralism and I
believe that multilateralism is the more effective method of the two.
Unilateralism appears to be a method in which one country, the U.S. in
this case, acts with too much power by making foreign policy decisions
without the support of other countries. Although using this method the
U.S. is able to make decisions more quickly, there is the danger of
other countries becoming hostile towards the U.S. if it makes a
unilateral decision that other countries disapprove of. Conversely,
multilateralism involves multiple countries cooperating with each
other when making global decisions. It involves the voices of all
countries during the discussion of a decision, and a compromised and
relatively fair consensus can be reached. Though the multilateral
method is by far slower than the unilateral method, it can satisfy
more countries, runs a lower risk of invoking hostility, and makes the
best of countries' competing interests. Multilateralism is the more
effective "Tool of Diplomacy" because it truly follows a diplomatic
and peaceful method to making important international decisions.
take place between different countries' government officials,
ultimately in order to reach a consensus without taking violent,
threatening action. As the current events book stated, the "Tools of
Diplomacy" include unilateralism as well as multilateralism and I
believe that multilateralism is the more effective method of the two.
Unilateralism appears to be a method in which one country, the U.S. in
this case, acts with too much power by making foreign policy decisions
without the support of other countries. Although using this method the
U.S. is able to make decisions more quickly, there is the danger of
other countries becoming hostile towards the U.S. if it makes a
unilateral decision that other countries disapprove of. Conversely,
multilateralism involves multiple countries cooperating with each
other when making global decisions. It involves the voices of all
countries during the discussion of a decision, and a compromised and
relatively fair consensus can be reached. Though the multilateral
method is by far slower than the unilateral method, it can satisfy
more countries, runs a lower risk of invoking hostility, and makes the
best of countries' competing interests. Multilateralism is the more
effective "Tool of Diplomacy" because it truly follows a diplomatic
and peaceful method to making important international decisions.
Andrew Lin
Oct 11, 2010, 10:27:42 PM10/11/10
to RHS GLOBAL ISSUES 2010
Bob Hope, cultural diplomat and deadpan snarker, defined United States
diplomacy as “offer the rabbit a carrot, and then hit the rabbit with
a big stick.” Henry Kissinger defined diplomacy as “pragmatic
collaboration”. To neither type of diplomacy – the Hope definition is
unilateral, while Kissinger’s is multilateral - is the United States a
stranger. Indeed, the United States is the world’s largest diplomatic
heavyweight, with influence and puppets and spies all around the
world, and is well-versed in both unilateral blundering and
multilateral planning. From the Gulf War to the United Nations, the
United States has employed diplomacy both in conjunction with military
might, creating the world’s most powerful geopolitical entity in the
process. Multilateral policy, however, has generally fared better both
within the annals of history and today for the United States than
unilateral decision-making. Presidents Taft and Roosevelt certainly
cannot forget the Spanish-American fiasco; though the war was won
quickly, both the Filipinos and Cubans were eventually left
discontented and disillusioned with the American gospel. Nor can
Presidents Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon forget the enormous blemish
that was the Vietnam War – helping the French was good and all, but
with no support from other countries (even France bailed), the war
effort flopped and failed. The Bush family will never forget Iraq, the
greatest American embarrassment overseas since the Iran-Contra
scandal. All of these uniquely American tragedies came about from a
unilateral approach to diplomacy – and all of these combined cost
America over 3 trillion dollars in equipment, 50,000 lives, and the
image of the United States as benevolent policeman. Multilateral
diplomacy, however, has generally worked out better than unilateral
diplomacy. World War II was a triumph in international collaboration,
with the United States merely assuming a leadership role along with
Great Britain and the Soviet Union. The United States benefited
heavily from World War II as well, receiving a boost economically and
eventually getting some control over much of the world. The Cold War
ended in a win for the United States; unlike the monolithic Eastern
bloc, NATO and the West was based on a policy of multilateral
collaboration. Diplomacy is a difficult art; only when all sides
cooperate can diplomacy be performed well.
diplomacy as “offer the rabbit a carrot, and then hit the rabbit with
a big stick.” Henry Kissinger defined diplomacy as “pragmatic
collaboration”. To neither type of diplomacy – the Hope definition is
unilateral, while Kissinger’s is multilateral - is the United States a
stranger. Indeed, the United States is the world’s largest diplomatic
heavyweight, with influence and puppets and spies all around the
world, and is well-versed in both unilateral blundering and
multilateral planning. From the Gulf War to the United Nations, the
United States has employed diplomacy both in conjunction with military
might, creating the world’s most powerful geopolitical entity in the
process. Multilateral policy, however, has generally fared better both
within the annals of history and today for the United States than
unilateral decision-making. Presidents Taft and Roosevelt certainly
cannot forget the Spanish-American fiasco; though the war was won
quickly, both the Filipinos and Cubans were eventually left
discontented and disillusioned with the American gospel. Nor can
Presidents Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon forget the enormous blemish
that was the Vietnam War – helping the French was good and all, but
with no support from other countries (even France bailed), the war
effort flopped and failed. The Bush family will never forget Iraq, the
greatest American embarrassment overseas since the Iran-Contra
scandal. All of these uniquely American tragedies came about from a
unilateral approach to diplomacy – and all of these combined cost
America over 3 trillion dollars in equipment, 50,000 lives, and the
image of the United States as benevolent policeman. Multilateral
diplomacy, however, has generally worked out better than unilateral
diplomacy. World War II was a triumph in international collaboration,
with the United States merely assuming a leadership role along with
Great Britain and the Soviet Union. The United States benefited
heavily from World War II as well, receiving a boost economically and
eventually getting some control over much of the world. The Cold War
ended in a win for the United States; unlike the monolithic Eastern
bloc, NATO and the West was based on a policy of multilateral
collaboration. Diplomacy is a difficult art; only when all sides
cooperate can diplomacy be performed well.
Julia Bryck
Oct 11, 2010, 11:04:15 PM10/11/10
to RHS GLOBAL ISSUES 2010
Diplomacy is essentially the negotiations between various nations on
different topics of mutual interest. This also means that countries
with official diplomatic relations have embassies stationed in each
others nations along with an ambassador and team of diplomats ready to
negotiate and monitor the interests of their native country. After
reviewing the "Tools of Diplomacy" found in the current issues book, I
have come to the conclusion that bilateralism is the most effective
negotiations tactic. Bilateral alliances are agreements between only
two countries. I believe this system would be more effective than the
multilateral tactic which appears to be more popular. Not only do
issues presented in a multilateral alliance get lost in hours and
hours of debate, but countries such as the U.S. are forced to
compromise their ideals with countries such as China and Russia that
follow a very different political agenda. Instead of being able to get
the job done, the initial purpose of, for example, invading the
country, becomes distorted. On the opposite side, unilateralism cannot
claim to be the most effective either. Taking the risk to act alone on
the world stage endangers alliances with other countries and global
reputation. If a country acts unilaterally, and then turns out to have
made a huge mistake, they don't have anyone to support them and must
now be held completely responsible for their actions. While I do
believe any country that makes such a mistake should be held
responsible, the U.S. should not take these kinds of risks. For these
reasons, I believe bilateralism is the only plausible answer. Having
such an alliance allows for minimal compromise of the countries'
ideals and a strengthened bond between the two countries if they face
conflict. Also, this tactic avoids the "absolute veto" found in the
UN, which gives the countries permanently on the UN Security Council
significantly more power. Because the United States is such a powerful
country, I don't think the world would respond very well to the news
that it was deciding against multilateralism, but all the same, I
stand by my opinion that bilateralism would be the most effective
option.
kim
Oct 12, 2010, 7:42:39 AM10/12/10
to RHS GLOBAL ISSUES 2010
deplomcay is the negotiation of relations between nations by
government officials. After reading the various methods of diplomacy,
I believe that the most effective one is multilateralism. In this
method, a group of countries come to a decision together and then
support that decision. I believe this is effective because it brings
together the will of many countries, and even the most powerful
country in the world cannot stand against their decision.
Unilateralism can create conflicts between countries because one
country acts by itself without consulting any others. With
multilateralism, this isn't a problem, since all countries have a say
in the final decision.
government officials. After reading the various methods of diplomacy,
I believe that the most effective one is multilateralism. In this
method, a group of countries come to a decision together and then
support that decision. I believe this is effective because it brings
together the will of many countries, and even the most powerful
country in the world cannot stand against their decision.
Unilateralism can create conflicts between countries because one
country acts by itself without consulting any others. With
multilateralism, this isn't a problem, since all countries have a say
in the final decision.
mclax...@aol.com
Oct 12, 2010, 3:22:16 PM10/12/10
to RHS GLOBAL ISSUES 2010
Diplomacy is the negotiation between countries of important issues
before acting. After reading the various "Tools of Diplomacy," I
believe the most effective form is multilateralism which is the
negotiation of issues with other countries through organizations like
the U.N.. I feel this is the most effective because it makes our
connections with other countries stronger. Also, acting alone or
unilaterally can irritate the allied countries because the had no say
in the decision made. However, I think a nation should act
unilaterally whenever there is a direct threat to their country. There
is no reason to take the time to negotiate with other nations when
there is threat to their country. However a method called bilateralism
could be a quick way to discuss the issue with another country for
consultance or assistance without going through the long process of
multilateralism.
before acting. After reading the various "Tools of Diplomacy," I
believe the most effective form is multilateralism which is the
negotiation of issues with other countries through organizations like
the U.N.. I feel this is the most effective because it makes our
connections with other countries stronger. Also, acting alone or
unilaterally can irritate the allied countries because the had no say
in the decision made. However, I think a nation should act
unilaterally whenever there is a direct threat to their country. There
is no reason to take the time to negotiate with other nations when
there is threat to their country. However a method called bilateralism
could be a quick way to discuss the issue with another country for
consultance or assistance without going through the long process of
multilateralism.
Emerson Congleton
Oct 12, 2010, 9:07:11 PM10/12/10
to RHS GLOBAL ISSUES 2010
Diplomacy is the management of international relations and issues.
After reading chapter 15 in our current issues book and hearing about
how different administrations from the past have gone about diplomacy;
I believe that the most effective method is a combination of
unilateralism and multilateralism. With multilateralism we can hear
both sides of the issue and also determine the best plan of action for
the people and civilians involved, however multilateralism can take a
long time and in certain crisis time is of the essence. If a country
chooses to adopt a more unilateralism approach they will risk having
the support and approval of other countries, but with this tactic you
can act quickly and more efficiently.If it is a matter of the nations
safety then I believe that unilateralism would be the best approach,
seeking out the approval of other countries can take too long and
acting quickly and effectively (even with out support) is important.
If the fate of the nation is not at risk then multilateralism should
be embraced as a way of insuring that one's country has the approval
of other countries, after all diplomacy is about negotiating and
managing foreign relations so maintaining a good opinion of your
country is important.
After reading chapter 15 in our current issues book and hearing about
how different administrations from the past have gone about diplomacy;
I believe that the most effective method is a combination of
unilateralism and multilateralism. With multilateralism we can hear
both sides of the issue and also determine the best plan of action for
the people and civilians involved, however multilateralism can take a
long time and in certain crisis time is of the essence. If a country
chooses to adopt a more unilateralism approach they will risk having
the support and approval of other countries, but with this tactic you
can act quickly and more efficiently.If it is a matter of the nations
safety then I believe that unilateralism would be the best approach,
seeking out the approval of other countries can take too long and
acting quickly and effectively (even with out support) is important.
If the fate of the nation is not at risk then multilateralism should
be embraced as a way of insuring that one's country has the approval
of other countries, after all diplomacy is about negotiating and
managing foreign relations so maintaining a good opinion of your
country is important.
Katherine Singh
Oct 14, 2010, 5:35:18 AM10/14/10
to RHS GLOBAL ISSUES 2010
Diplomacy is how government officials make negotiations and relations
with other countries' government officials. One method of diplomacy is
unilateralism, where a country acts and makes decisions on its own.
This is the fastest method because the country or state doesn't have
to seek approval from another country or organisation, like the UN,
which could take some time to respond. An example of unilateralism is
9/11, when President Bush had to respond the the fire and destruction
without consulting the senate. I approve of the decision because it
was an emergency situation that could afford no waiting around. I
don't approve of Predsident Bush's unilateral decision to invade Iraq
even after the UN told him they wouldn't support the decision. His
decision wasn't out of necessity, there were other options that
could've been just as or more effective than invading off the bat.
The other method of diplomacy is multilateralism, where a country has
the support of antoher country or organisation before carrying out a
decision. I support multilateralism in situations where nothing
drastic would happen in the day or two waiting for the country or
organisation to review and respond to your suggestion. For more
general problems I think multilateralism is the better option because
even though it may take longer, it magnifies the countries' relief
efforts and is a lot better than 20 uncoordinated efforts.
Multilateralism usually is more effective because more countries are
involved and are more likely to follow the decision decided. That's
why I think multilateralism is more effective all around than
unilateralism, unless the decison is for an emergency situation
needing immediate response.
with other countries' government officials. One method of diplomacy is
unilateralism, where a country acts and makes decisions on its own.
This is the fastest method because the country or state doesn't have
to seek approval from another country or organisation, like the UN,
which could take some time to respond. An example of unilateralism is
9/11, when President Bush had to respond the the fire and destruction
without consulting the senate. I approve of the decision because it
was an emergency situation that could afford no waiting around. I
don't approve of Predsident Bush's unilateral decision to invade Iraq
even after the UN told him they wouldn't support the decision. His
decision wasn't out of necessity, there were other options that
could've been just as or more effective than invading off the bat.
The other method of diplomacy is multilateralism, where a country has
the support of antoher country or organisation before carrying out a
decision. I support multilateralism in situations where nothing
drastic would happen in the day or two waiting for the country or
organisation to review and respond to your suggestion. For more
general problems I think multilateralism is the better option because
even though it may take longer, it magnifies the countries' relief
efforts and is a lot better than 20 uncoordinated efforts.
Multilateralism usually is more effective because more countries are
involved and are more likely to follow the decision decided. That's
why I think multilateralism is more effective all around than
unilateralism, unless the decison is for an emergency situation
needing immediate response.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages