Diplomacy and International Relations (Essay Sample)

Diplomacy and International Relations (Students’ Name) Course Name & Number Professor’s Name Name of the Institution City and State where it is located Due Date Diplomacy and International Relations Should IR experts actively seek roles in foreign policymaking as Pracademics, or maintain a critical distance as independent scholars? Active seeking of roles in foreign policymaking by academic scholars can be both advantageous and disadvantageous, a point of the existing heated debate over the two entities. Proponents argue for incorporating academics into policy-making to bring about change considering the advancements in the contemporary social environment (Cairney and Oliver, 2020). On the other hand, opponents dispute this claim citing potential ethical issues, credibility of the academic scholars, and the overall morality degradation. For instance, E.H Car argued for independence between academic study and practical application highlighting that involvement in policymaking may result in the shaping of effective policies like those that led to drafting the Iran Nuclear Deal. On the contrary, Krasner underlined that this may be difficult citing the underlying differences between the two entities. This can be demonstrated by the case of Dr. Condoleezza Rice (Mabry, 2007) when she supported the Iraq War raising ethical complexities and questions regarding ideology on foreign policy. Active engagement is associated with diverse social and societal concerns. For instance, involvement in policy may lead to ethical dilemmas especially when policy decisions clash with the principles of human rights and standards in academics. For instance, the former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Dr. Samantha experienced ethical dilemmas regarding humanitarian military force and potential interventionist consequences as Filkins (2019) highlighted. Also, it is worth noting that involvement in policymaking may contribute to political bias or alignment leading to compromised integrity and credibility of scholars. According to Murphy and Fulda (2011), such risks may render scholars disadvantaged in their careers and tint their integrity. This can be depicted in the case of Harvard University’s Kenedy School of Governance and its ties with the Government of Saudi Arabia. The academic autonomy is questionable. However, collaborations between academics and policymakers can result in reducing the existing challenges. For instance, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and Brookings Institution have demonstrated that collaborative efforts between policymakers and academics play a crucial role in solving global societal issues. Ultimately, academic involvement in policy making is a complex issue necessitating a multifaceted approach. In a democratic society, who is ultimately responsible for defining "the national interest"? Examine the potential limitations and benefits of various decision-making models, such as public referendums, elite consensus, or expert analysis. Defining the national interest in a democratic community is challenging due to the underlying interconnected factors involving experts, the public, and elite groups. Citizens often leverage public referendums as a platform to convey their direct input and influence essential decisions. Nonetheless, citizens often overlook the complexity of issues (Liotta, 2000). This can be seen in the case of Brexit and the referendums are handled in the EU membership. Concerning Elites, their consensus is often created by political leaders along with other influential stakeholders. Such consensus can significantly foster efficient decision-making. However, there are possibilities of prioritizing privileged interests and not societal concerns (Liotta, 2000). For instance, the invasion of Iraq in 2003 was highly influenced by flawed decision-making. Experts also may play a crucial role in shaping national interests. For instance, they participate in deep analyses to inform decision-making based on evidence-based practices, especially on concerns like climate change. However, their contributions are vulnerable to political influence which undermines the significance of their expertise (Liotta, 2000). Overall, governments that are elected into power are responsible for the definition and prioritizing national interests while maneuvering through the challenges resulting from elites, experts, and public opinion. Even though every decision-making approach comes with advantages and disadvantages, the primary obligation of making informed decisions to serve society is placed on the elected leaders. Hence, defining the national interest in a democratic setting is faced with diverse intricacies, yet the elected leaders must find ways to navigate to serve the interest of the society as they are obligated with the burden of solving the national interests. Under what circumstances is economic diplomacy an adequate tool for promoting dialogue and cooperation with non-democratic nations? Explore alternative diplomatic strategies that could be employed alongside trade and commerce, e.g. cultural exchange programs, human rights advocacy, or transnational collaboration on climate change mitigation Economic diplomacy can be an effective tool to promote dialogue and cooperation with non-democratic states under specific circumstances especially when different countries have similar economic goals and interests. However, several alternative diplomatic strategies can be effective in promoting dialogue across different countries. Understanding and determining common interests is essential in fostering dialogue between democratic and non-democratic countries. When countries have shared economic interests, diplomacy can adequately thrive. For instance, when countries realize they have complimentary industries and resources and negotiate trade pacts, it does not matter whether one country is a democratic or non-democratic state (Lisiecka-Zurowska, 2019). This can be amplified by the existence of trade agreements like the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) which promotes trade across different countries like the U.S. Mexico, and Canada, and China's Belt and Road Initiative which brings together countries across the globe from Asia, Africa, and Europe aligned for common economic interests. One notable alternative diplomatic approach that can be effective alongside trade and commerce is cooperation to solve common global issues like climate change. Global climate change is a concern for every country whether it is a democratic or non-democratic state, bringing countries together to ensure human survival does not vanish. For instance, The Paris Agreement which was signed by almost 200 countries in 2015 is considered a landmark global pact designed to alleviate global warming and address climate change issues (Pauw et al., 2019). The treaty exemplifies how countries can converge whether autocratic, democratic, or authoritarian, and table issues of concern. Overall, countries can utilize diverse diplomatic approaches to facilitate dialogue with non-democratic states. Trade and commerce characterized by complimenting industries, and shared resources are some of the effective strategies. However, other circumstances like when there is a global crisis such as climate change prompt countries to reach out and dialogue to find solutions. Hence, diverse diplomatic strategies may play a crucial role in facilitating dialogue among rival and enemy countries. To what extent is a democratic state obligated to actively combat transnational repression against its citizens as well as foreign nationals within its borders (e.g. cyber bullying, surveillance, forced disappearances, etc), even if doing so may create tension with the repressing state and impact on its ability for future international cooperation? A democratic state has the moral responsibility with regards to transnational repression to not only protect its citizens but also provide refuge to individuals fleeing their oppressor countries. For instance, the Russian government has constantly targeted dissidents and its critics across and out of the country’s borders like the poisoning of the former Russian spy Sergei Kripal and Boris Nemtsov who was an opposition leader as Clark (2013) discussed....