Mains Practice Questions

Introduction

A young Indian Foreign Service officer is tasked with overseeing the evacuation of Indian citizens stranded in a conflict zone abroad. The officer encounters several challenges, including limited resources, pressure from the local government to keep operations discreet, and a prominent business person seeking preferential treatment in exchange for a donation. The officer must navigate ethical dilemmas, diplomatic sensitivities, and logistical constraints, ensuring that all actions are fair and prioritize the safety of vulnerable groups.

Body

(a) Stakeholders Involved:

(b) Options Available

Option 1: Prioritize the Businessperson's Family

• Action: Grant priority evacuation to the businessperson's family in exchange for the promised donation.
• Pros:
  • Secures additional resources for the evacuation mission, potentially helping more people.
  • Strengthens relations with an influential local figure, which may aid future diplomatic efforts.
• Cons:
  • Violates ethical principles of fairness and equity by prioritizing a family not in immediate danger.
  • Damages trust among the Indian diaspora and may lead to accusations of favoritism.
  • Could demoralize embassy staff and volunteers.

Option 2: Follow Protocols and Evacuate Based on Urgency

• Action: Adhere to the official evacuation protocol, prioritizing families based on need and precariousness of their situation.
• Pros:
  • Upholds fairness and ethical integrity, ensuring those in critical danger are evacuated first.
  • Maintains the credibility of the embassy and reinforces trust within the diaspora.
  • Avoids setting a precedent of favoritism or accepting conditional offers.
• Cons:
  • Misses the opportunity to secure additional resources.
  • Risks alienating an influential figure, potentially impacting local operations and diplomacy.
  • Limited resources could slow down the evacuation process for others.

Option 3: Negotiate a Compromise with the Businessperson

• Action: Accept the donation without granting priority evacuation to the businessperson’s family but assure them that their turn will come within the operational capacity.
• Pros:
  • Acquires additional resources for the evacuation mission without compromising fairness.
  • Shows responsiveness to the businessperson’s concerns while maintaining ethical integrity.
  • Preserves relations with the influential figure for future cooperation.
• Cons:
  • Risks offending the businessperson if their family feels delayed.
  • Might raise suspicion among others about favoritism if the compromise is not transparent.

Option 4: Engage the Local Government for Support

• Action: Approach the local government for assistance to expand evacuation capacity while adhering to the protocol.
• Pros:
  • Strengthens diplomatic collaboration, ensuring smooth operations in a sensitive environment.
  • Demonstrates adherence to local authorities’ preferences, minimizing the risk of escalating tensions.
• Cons:
  • May delay the evacuation process further due to bureaucratic hurdles.
  • Risks revealing the embassy’s limited capacity, potentially weakening its position in the host country.

Option 5: Conduct a Low-Key Evacuation of All Critical Cases

• Action: Evacuate the most vulnerable individuals quietly and strategically, minimizing visibility while ensuring fairness.
• Pros:
  • Aligns with the local government’s directive to avoid escalation.
  • Maintains equity and prioritization of those in greatest need.
  • Prevents unnecessary political backlash or community dissatisfaction.
• Cons:
  • Logistical challenges due to limited resources and small staff.
  • May be perceived as slow or inadequate by some, including the businessperson.

Chosen Option: Combination of Options 2, 3, and 5

• Adhere to Protocols (Option 2): Prioritize evacuation based on urgency and need.
  • Adhering to protocols ensures fairness by prioritizing the most vulnerable while maintaining the embassy's credibility and trust with the diaspora.
• Negotiate with the Businessperson (Option 3): Accept the donation but explain the necessity of following established evacuation protocols.
  • Assure them that their family will be evacuated soon within the plan.
• Conduct Low-Key Operations (Option 5): Quietly execute the evacuation of the most vulnerable to comply with local government directives and avoid tension escalation.

(c) Ethical Dilemmas

• Utilitarian vs Deontological Ethics: The situation pits utilitarian ethics (maximizing benefit by accepting the donation) against deontological ethics (following duty and ensuring fairness).
  • Accepting the donation might enhance the evacuation effort overall but compromises the principles of impartiality and justice.
• Fairness vs Favoritism: Giving preferential treatment to the businessperson’s family undermines fairness and the trust of the Indian community.
  • However, it might lead to securing valuable resources for the evacuation mission.
• Protocol vs Humanitarian Need: Strict adherence to protocol may delay support for the most vulnerable individuals, such as women and children.
  • Deviating from protocol could create a precedent that compromises ethical governance.
• Diplomatic Pressure vs Operational Efficiency: The local government’s insistence on minimizing visible operations conflicts with the need for timely and large-scale evacuations.
  • Balancing their demands with operational goals is critical.

Conclusion

In this crisis, a balanced approach ensures the safety of the most vulnerable while maintaining fairness and ethical integrity. By leveraging additional resources without compromising principles and conducting low-key operations, the embassy can efficiently manage the evacuation. This approach upholds diplomatic sensitivities, strengthens trust, and aligns with long-term responsibilities.