My country versus the world
Discussion statement | This is for ages 14 to 16
Countries often face difficult choices. Leaders are expected to protect their own citizens, but they also take part in global agreements, alliances and international efforts that affect other countries.
Do you agree or disagree with the statement below? Explain why.
It’s better for leaders to make decisions based on what’s best for their people rather than what is best for the world.
Tell us what you think
You might want to structure your answer like this:
I agree / disagree because [your opinion]. One reason for my view is [explain your reason]. One example that supports my view is [evidence that supports your opinion]. However, others might argue that [an opposite opinion].
Make sure you read the comments from other Topical Talkers to see whether you agree or disagree with them.
Comments (7)
I strongly disagree with this. I think that if a leader only cares about their own country, the problems from the rest of the world will eventually find them anyway.
One reason for my view is that things like viruses and pollution do not stay in one place. You can try to stop a problem in your own country but the world is so connected that it is impossible to hide. If you want to keep your own people safe, you have to care about what is happening to everyone else too.
One example is how a sickness spreads. A leader might think they have stopped a virus in their country but then someone travels in from somewhere else and carries it back with them. This shows that you cannot be truly healthy if the rest of the world is still sick. It is like trying to clean only one spot on a dirty window; the rest of the window is still going to look bad.
However, others might argue that they are not maids for other countries and should only do things for themselves. I understand that leaders want to look after their own people first. But in my opinion , helping the world is actually the smartest way to look after your own people in the long run.
Thanks for reading!!!
Hope you find it helpful 🤗
I believe that leaders should put their country first before worldwide problems. My country, Indonesia, shows that national development comes first before global problems. During Joko Widodo’s presidency, the government focused heavily on infrastructure development and economic growth. As a member of the UN and ASEAN, Indonesia has shown concerns for global problems like climate change. For example, Indonesia committed to the Paris Agreement (net-zero emissions by 2060) by restoring mangrove forests. Due to Indonesia having the biggest mangrove forest in the world, the country started a large-scale mangrove restoration program in 2021, a major part of it’s climate strategy. Indonesia had also started using renewable energy, investing in geothermal, hydropower, and solar energy. However, Indonesia still remains as one of the largest coal exporters in the world and heavily uses it domestically. Indonesia’s geographic area allows them to export with a lower cost to major buyers like China, India, and Japan, promoting economic growth efficiently.
In 2022, Jokowi declared a temporary coal export ban to protect domestic electricity supply and for energy security, only gradually reducing the coal export. Major energy shortages and drastic coal export reduction can reduce government income. Others may think it’s selfish and nationalistic, but with low income and the lack of long-term financial stability, the ability to contribute to international solutions would be limited. In conclusion, a stable country comes first before helping the world effectively.
In en era defined by shifting geopolitics, the debate between “ My country versus in the world ’’ and sustaining aliances like NATO in more relevant than ever. while some argue for isolationism to prioritize domestic needs, I believe that no nation can truly thrive in a vacuum. The concept of ‘‘ friends forever " in NATO in not just about sentimental loyalty; it is a strategic necessity for collective security.
However, the “ friend forever " status in being tasted. When a country adopts a “ me-first " attitude, it risks weakening the mutual trust that holds global peace together. For instance, if members of an alliance disagree on spending or defence priorities, the shield of collective security cracks. Untimely, the real challenge Isn’t choosing between your country and the world, but realizing that protesting your country effectively in the modern age requireds active cooperation with the world. True national strength comes from the resilience of our international partnership, not from insolation.
I disagree with the statement that it is better for leaders to make decisions based only on what is best for their own people rather than what is best for the world.
While leaders are elected to serve their own country, which means they have a primary responsibility to protect and improve the lives of their citizens, focusing exclusively on national interests can create long-term problems both domestically and internationally.
I understand that citizens expect their government to provide security, economic stability, healthcare, education, …, but in today’s world, national and global interests are often closely connected.
Climate change, pandemics, and economic crises are not problems everyone has to solve by himself. That’s not possible. That means, if a country refuses to cooperate internationally, it may eventually harm its own citizens. For example, failing to participate in environmental agreements might protect short-term economic interests, but it can lead to long-term environmental damage and an increase of environmental disasters in the country itself.
Moreover, supporting international cooperation can build trust and prevents conflicts. If every country acted only in narrow self-interest, global instability would likely increase, ultimately harming everyone.
So in many cases, what is best for the world is also beneficial for individual countries.
I strongly disagree with this statement.
Global cooperation is necessary to quell equally global threats. Humanitarian aide depends on the kindness and generosity of other stable countries. As of recently, some countries like the USA and Sweden have withdrawn aide. It’s sent the world into chaos, and for dependant countries like Myanmar (which Sweden was funding), it means thousands of deaths. Families in Myanmar are already often forced to flee due to the civil war, and deaths have ensued. In cases where the government is unable to take care of its citizens, it’s necessary to support one another and donate any resources that help. Issues like these are caused by countries withdrawing their support, despite having the resources to do it because the extra funds benefit them,
Unfortunately, countries who have recently acted for their best interests, not the best global interests are already causing a lot of harm. As an example, President Trump of the USA is of the view that global warming, is not a pressing issue and has removed precautions and limits for greenhouse gases. According to the BBC, as the USA is already one of the biggest polluters, it now means that the impacts of global warming may spread much more rapidly. Global warming is an international issue, and needs international cooperation to be solved.
When countries ignore the fact that their best interests, could mean another’s downfall, we see global repercussions and issues that others have to clean up. Humanity cannot act as one society, if humanity is unwilling to face the consequences of reality.
I agree with that leader should give people what they want on what people in other countries say or need for changing our country in different situations.
In other countries they didn't see the real view of the country and what it's problems that must be takes in consider , the people in the country sees the problem of the country and it's effects.
If a leader wat taught to give the people less internet connection because other countries need it ,If he accepted it will make him the worst leader in the view point of the people in the country which can lead in less population in this country and make it easier for other countries to occupy this country as if it was for them
On the other hand some people think that taking rules from other countries is better ,their are some countries that are talented and know how to deal with different situations.
I disagree with this statement, because we are all people of this world and to me it doesn't matter from which part of the world you are, how you look, what your language is, what your traditions and cultures are. Because we are all a part of this world and we should act like that.
So now to really say why I think that. Maybe for a standard person it's normal or what is expected for a leader to do, but they don't think about the future or the consequences of those actions. Sometimes what leaders of countries decide can hurt or influence other countries in a bad way. For example, if a country increases the price of a product they are known for and sell the most, that will make a chain reaction and all connected countries to that one will suffer and would also have to increase a price of their product so they could sustain themselves (which isn't good for the world).
I think it's normal and reasonable for a leader of a country to make decisions that can better their country, but think about would they influence other countries in a bad way (and maybe if they would, those countries should talk about what would be the optimal outcome for both countries – of course that is just an idea).
But our world isn't like that, most of them look for what is best for them, but if we would all work together this world would be much better for all of use (we could help the poorer countries, help the ones that are in war or any kind of conflict and things such as those). Now that would be a great world for all of us, and I hope we can achieve it one day. Thank you for reading. Byeee!