When applying the principles of Risk to winning, a primary goal becomes clear, maintain your position in your territories and eliminate others. However, the concrete objective of Risk can’t be applied to real world politics. In a world that has established equilibrium as to the territories that exist, the brutal force exhibited in Risk have no place in a world that has begun to attempt diplomatic negotiations. That is why winning in actual world politics seems a bit different. One must take into account the use, by a state, many factors including hard and soft power, negotiations, and diplomacy. In my mind, a country that can maintain its position as a hegemonic power and utilize all of these factors has “won”.
The tact that is required by states to maintain influence derives from the ability to employ soft power, hard power, negotiations, and diplomacy. An effective balance of these four proves to be an effective strategy for any government that desires to thrive.
The obvious example is the United States. While I may sound biased, I cannot think of many other states that are able to both economically and politically persuade their fellow countries to agree with them, in addition to forming using legislation to encourage other countries to agree with United States policy. In addition, the United States is the center of negotiation and diplomacy. Washington D.C. has the most consulates than any other nation in the world and the United Nations, a coalition for peace and the facilitation of cooperation between nations, is located in New York City. That concentration of power indicates that other nations trust that the United States is capable of maintaining a power that will uphold their own interests. There is a reason the United Nations isn’t headquartered in Haiti or Azerbaijan. Nations would simply not trust said nations to uphold the security of their diplomats and their values. The application of this diplomacy secures the reputation of the United States. While this sounds like a reiteration of realist IR theory and The Prince, it is merely an elaboration and application of what we have learned thus far.
In a game of Risk played by any person outside of our class, the objective is clear. Obtain all of the territories in the fewest rounds to win. The world is much more complicated than this. Winning can mean many things. Winning can be economic, meaning who can produce the most with the least inputs. Winning can be political, meaning who can be the most diplomatic and give off the best image of its government. Any means of winning in real world politics is relative. However, as explained above, it seems the United States has managed to “win”. We, as a nation, employ the necessary tools to ensure our survival. Herbert Spencer summed up Charles Darwin’s evolutionary theory into the phrase “survival of the fittest”, and I interpret winning as surviving. So the use of the above factors means the United States, in it’s current position today, has won, simply because it has survived.
I agree with your general argument that winning is equal to the survival of the state. However, I must argue two points; first, I would point out that if winning means surviving, then not only has the United States won, but all the states in this world would have won. However, it can also it can be argued that the term of "survival of the fittest" doesn't apply to the world, because if that is the case, why isn't the Vatican city not taken over and why isn't the Samoa Islands not conquered? Therefore, the term survival of the fittest doesn't quite fit the situation, although the notion that winning is surviving is true.
ReplyDeleteSecond point I would like to point out is that if surviving is winning, then the world would be as realists depict it; it would be military arms race all over the world to protect itself, which is not the case today. However, as I mentioned in my post, if we adopt the view that survival of the state is a means to winning, then the argument, in my view, becomes more valid. For further detail about this argument refer to my substantive post for this week (http://changeyourthoughtschangetheworld.blogspot.com/2010/10/winner-and-loser-in-world-politics.html)
In general, I agree the survival of the state is important, although the implications that you draw from that notion, I must disagree with.
How can surviving just by itself mean a state is “winning”? There is more to “winning” than just surviving. Pakistan is surviving but how can they be "winning" when they are having NATO oil convoys being attacked by terrorists that are living in the countries tribal region. Greece is still alive and surviving but they obviously aren’t “winning” because they are in a horrible financial crisis. The same goes for the U.S, yeah we are surviving but we aren’t winning. We are in over 10 trillion dollars in debt, have internal issues of poverty and we are currently fighting a war that hasn’t been “won” yet.
ReplyDeleteAlex, I agree with your idea that surviving in itself doesn't mean winning; however, it is also too hasty to disregard survival completely.
ReplyDeleteOne thing that is worth remembering from the realist argument, as well as from common sense possibly, is that if there is no state/ government then there we cannot define "winning" at all, because we won't have the subject that is doing the winning. Therefore, survival of the state is fundamental in defining winning, and as I keep on repeating, a means to winning.
But yes, survival is not winning; its just an intermediary step