Chapter # 13

Q1. Is there a growing sense of community?

Ans. it is implied that there is a growing sense of community in the context of foreign policy. The
increasing commitment of states to aid those outside their borders, advocating for debt relief, promoting
human rights, and engaging in humanitarian interventions indicates a willingness to prioritize the welfare
of people in other countries. This suggests a recognition of shared responsibilities and a sense of
solidarity beyond national boundaries, which aligns with the idea of a growing sense of community in
the international arena.

Q2. What kinds of duties should we have to distant strangers?

Ans. A wide range of foreign policy practices now reflect a sense of duty towards strangers. This includes
foreign aid, human rights promotion, development assistance, global health initiatives, and more. One of
the most prominent expressions of this idea is humanitarianism, which involves providing life-saving
relief to those in danger.

Although the concern for and obligation to distant strangers has existed throughout history, there has
been a significant expansion of the humanitarian system over the past 200 years, particularly in the last
two decades. Today, there is a vast institutional network involving states, international organizations, and
non-governmental organizations (NGOs) working to save lives and address the root causes of suffering
and violence.

Q3. Has the purpose of foreign policy changed? If so, how, and why?

Ans. The purpose of foreign policy has changed in recent years. Traditionally, foreign policy was primarily
focused on promoting a state's own interests, such as national security, economic prosperity, and
territorial expansion. However, there has been a shift towards a broader understanding of foreign policy
that includes a responsibility and duty to others, particularly those in need or facing humanitarian crises.

The change in the purpose of foreign policy can be attributed to several factors. Firstly, globalization and
advances in communication technology have made the world more interconnected. People are now
more aware of global issues, disasters, and human suffering. This increased awareness has led to a
growing sense of responsibility towards distant strangers and a recognition that the well-being of others
can impact global stability and security.

Secondly, the changing nature of international relations and the evolving concept of a stable
international order have influenced the purpose of foreign policy. States now acknowledge that
democracy, human rights, and the rule of law are not only important for their own internal stability but
also for global peace and cooperation. Promoting these values and engaging in humanitarian efforts
aligns with their self-interests in maintaining a just and stable international order.

Q4. What price do governments pay if they fail to live up to high-minded ideals? What price do they pay
if they try to do so but fail? What credit do they get if they others?
Ans. governments may face consequences if they fail to live up to high-minded ideals in their foreign
policy. The price they pay can vary depending on the specific situation, but some potential consequences
include:

1. Damage to Reputation: Governments that fail to uphold high-minded ideals may face criticism
and a loss of credibility on the international stage. Other nations, international organizations,
and civil society groups may view them as hypocritical or untrustworthy, which can harm their
reputation and influence in global affairs.

2. Erosion of Trust: Failing to live up to high-minded ideals can erode trust and cooperation with
other countries. Governments may find it more difficult to form alliances, negotiate treaties, or
garner support for their initiatives if they are perceived as not acting in line with their stated
values.

3. Loss of Soft Power: Soft power refers to a country's ability to influence others through attraction
and persuasion rather than coercion. When governments fail to live up to their high-minded
ideals, their soft power can diminish. This can weaken their ability to shape global narratives,
win hearts and minds, and gain support for their policies.

Q5. Do voters reward politicians when they carry out their ethical obligations to others?

Ans. Voters reward politicians for fulfilling their ethical obligations to others can vary. Some voters may
appreciate and support politicians who prioritize ethics in their decision-making, seeing it as a sign of
integrity and moral leadership. However, other voters may prioritize more immediate and tangible
concerns, such as economic issues or national security, and may not give significant weight to ethical
considerations. Ultimately, the response of voters to politicians' ethical obligations depends on individual
values, priorities, and the specific context of the political landscape.

Q6. Do you think that ethics should play a role in foreign policy?

Ans. The debate about ethics in foreign policy revolves around whether ethical principles should guide a
country's decisions and actions in international affairs.

Supporters argue that ethics should play a role because governments have a moral responsibility to
promote justice and human rights globally. They believe that considering ethics can benefit a country's
long-term interests, enhance its reputation, and address global challenges more effectively.

Critics, on the other hand, believe that foreign policy should prioritize a country's national interests and
sovereignty, rather than being driven by abstract ethical principles. They argue that ethical
considerations can be subjective and may lead to conflicts.

In summary, the role of ethics in foreign policy is a complex issue, and different countries have different
perspectives on how much emphasis should be placed on ethics in their international engagements.

Q7. Which domestic actors and government bodies are most likely to argue for an ethical foreign policy?

Ans. domestic actors such as human rights organizations, advocacy groups, and civil society organizations
are most likely to argue for an ethical foreign policy. Additionally, government bodies such as foreign
affairs ministries, international development agencies, and certain diplomatic personnel may also
advocate for an ethical approach to foreign policy. These actors often prioritize principles such as human
rights, justice, and humanitarian concerns in international relations.

Q8. What is the best way to influence the state’s foreign policy so that it helps those in need?

Ans. The best way to influence the state's foreign policy to help those in need is through active civic
engagement and advocacy. This includes raising awareness, mobilizing public support, and putting
pressure on government officials through peaceful means such as petitions, protests, lobbying, and
public campaigns. By highlighting the importance of humanitarian concerns, human rights, and global
justice, citizens can influence policymakers and shape foreign policy decisions that prioritize assistance to
those in need.

Q9. Does the fact that states do not consistently live up to thew ethics prove that realists are right?

Ans. The fact that states do not consistently live up to ethical standards does not necessarily prove that
realists are right. It reflects the complex nature of international relations, where states often prioritize
their national interests and security concerns over ethical considerations. However, it does not invalidate
the importance of ethical principles in shaping foreign policy and the aspirations for a more just and
compassionate world. Other perspectives, such as liberalism and constructivism, also provide valuable
insights into the motivations and actions of states in the international arena.