"All I do Is Win, Win, Win No Matter What, Got Money on My Mind, Can Never Get Enough"

In risk, my team’s objective was to obtain either no wars, or alliances across two thirds of the board. Should we achieve this objective, we would effectively win the game. While on a risk board, the strategic maneuvers and preferred outcome of the game was relatively simple, in the modern day world, nothing is as easy. Each team’s objective in essence represented a different country in today’s world. Perhaps, for the countries symbolized on the board, accomplishing their objectives would constitute “winning” in their minds. For example, the red state’s goal of possession of the territories surrounding their motherland of Ukraine could be construed as winning for the nationalists, but who can really define winning? Although the Ukrainians may have achieved their goal, did they really win? They may be in a state of economic or social turmoil due to all the battles they fought, or they may have lost many troops in the fighting. The word winning can be taken to mean all sorts of things, and I think it’s incredibly hard to apply a single working definition to it.

Today, “winning” for a country like the United States, at this point, would involve economic stability, improved welfare, advancements domestically, improved foreign relations, and defeating terrorism. These broad items would only allow us to win short term however—eventually, our goals will change and we will no longer have “won”. In terms of the war on terror, people talk all the time about “winning” wars, and especially this war. The thing is, wars rarely have a defined winner and loser. Sure, one side is victorious, but they lose troops, lose support, lose morale, and lose standing in the international community, so although they are technically the “winner” of the battle, the term is applied only in the sense that they don’t have to make reparations.

In general, I think winning in the world today entails a nation maintaining its identity, political system, economy, and standing internationally. But dependant on the conflict, the meaning of “winning” fluctuates and evolves.

Winning The World Today

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.

Reflection Week 8

Past week's reflection has been interesting in that the board game was transformed so drastically that you could actually see how the situation sometimes can only be most effectively addressed by certain behavior which can be then traced back to a certain school of thought. Since the game is not finished, it would be inappropriate to comment on specific objectives.

However, one aspect that is interesting is that because there is no severe consequence for going to a war (except for losing one troop every turn per war) the diplomatic status changes quite often and war is easy to wager if there is enough resource. This is somewhat true in the world today because if a state has resources it can go to war at any time, yet it faces much international consequences in today's integrated international community. Without much justification, nations are certain to be criticized if they go to war without an overpowering reason. This was an aspect that seemed to be missing in the game and would have made the game more similar to the real world.

Because the wars went somewhat unchecked, it seemed that most teams were relying on a realist notion of self-help. However, alliances were formed not to balance the power against the hegemon, but for strategical reasons and troops were maneuvered around to defend better or to get into a better position to strike than for an outright assault. However, there were certain countries that relied heavily on alliances and stayed out of conflicts. Interestingly, when alliances were suggested, not many, if not all, were reciprocally accepted, which kind of is similar to the liberal notion.

All in all, as PTJ mentioned, you can see several schools of thought being put in play in to the risk, despite the fact that none of the teams have really decided beforehand which school of thought they should pursue.

Reflection-Week 8

Risk is one of my all time favorite games. Only when I began playing again in class did I realize my true passion for it. The incorporation of both diplomacy and tact make this game pop off of a two-dimensional board and inject itself into our real lives. Using our class as a setting for an ongoing game made one of my favorite games become all the more real. Secret conversations between diplomats, secrecy, and intrigue were all major players in the way the game unraveled last week. Unfortunately, we haven’t reached a conclusion, so tomorrow (or later today, rather) will be very interesting.

The process of finishing the first analytical essay was a lot less painful than I thought it would be. The real stress came from listening to the entire floor talk about it for hours on end right up until it was due. I found myself avoiding pressing the 6^th floor button in the elevator and running from the elevator to my room. While I enjoy helping others, if I had to read about another NEO committee I don’t know what I would have done.

Last week was also very nice because Fall Break allowed us all a chance to take a small breath. Though I spent the long weekend away, I was unable to take a breather because I had a weekend full of catching up with family, friends, and football, the three most important F’s in my life. Even though the weekend is over, I look forward to getting back to the daily grind and working hard to finish our first semester.

Reflection Week 8- Risk

Playing the board game Risk in world politics this past week has been so important because it has shown me the true passion and understanding of life that comes out of the study of world politics. After being separated into teams, I was fascinated to watch all the defensive strategies of the other members. As I observed the unanticipated powers that had appeared and the ways the teams formed alliances and went to war, it made the game more unpredictable than I had originally imagined.

The prospect theory in psychology states that individuals have a tendency to treat gains and losses differently. It holds that decision makers seem to fear losses more than they desire gains, and this translates into a willingness to take greater risks to protect what they have and fewer risks are taken to acquire what they want. I noticed that all the teams in the class, while they always desired to acquire more territory, were first and foremost concerned about protecting what territory they already possessed.

The status quo (in this example a state’s current territorial possessions) becomes a reference point which helps to predict, according to Jack Levy in Prospect Theory and Rational Choice, “risk-averse” or “risk-seeking” behavior. With all the teams given separate instructions and objectives, it was hard to identify which team was the risk-seeker and depending on the circumstances (if the team was at war or allied with another) if they were demonstrating risk-adverse behavior to protect their own best interest. Thus, when possible, it is important to understand that the status-quo of a country may have a different reference point than one may think. Knowing a decision maker’s actual reference point and alliance with other countries are key factors in the opposing country’s success.

The heads of state and diplomats in our game of Risk were acting in neo-realism and neo-liberal assumptions that could be viewed as an example of game theory in international relations. Game theory is a method of states (in our example with teams) developing strategies that act as a method for developing rationalist theories. Neo-realism tend to view that the security of the state is always at risk. Neo-liberals tend to seek out the plan that is in the best interest for their own state.

Game theory and its application to international relations is constantly undergoing change to take into account the decision makers’ attitudes toward risk, as well as other’s insights into the decision-making process. Similar to game theory, the board game Risk we had been playing in class is useful in its ability to demonstrate how a county’s behavior affects the global community.

Citations:

Prospect Theory, Rational Choice, and International Relations Jack S. Levy International Studies Quarterly Vol. 41, No. 1 (Mar., 1997), pp. 87-112

Reflection week 8

This week’s UC common event of Salome was really interesting to me. I had never been to an opera before, so it was a new experience. I suppose that was the point of making it the UC event, because the majority of students had never seen an opera before either. The plot of the opera, while disturbing in nature, was exciting to follow. Although the opera was sung in German, the sur-titles made it easy to understand what was going on. The problem was dividing my attention between the action on the stage and the sur-titles above it. Many times, I found myself just listening and watching the action unfold and ignoring the sur-titles entirely. Even though this meant that I couldn’t have an exact translation, the music and actions of the characters meant that I understood the general plot nonetheless. The music and expressions on the stage served as a bridge between languages, facilitating understanding without using words.

Reflection Week 7

This week's simulation was interesting and I believe our group did fairly well in presenting the argument of our group as realistically as possible. Besides this week's simulation, there is not much to discuss about in-class material. However, one thing that caught my eyes while browsing through the news was an interesting series of events happening in North Korea.

First of all, one of Kim Jong Il's son, Kim Jong Un, was named a four-star general few weeks ago, and there was a speculation that he would be the next North Korea's ruler once Kim Jong Il passed away. However, recently, it has been published that experts on North Korea speculate Kim Jong Un to be the 6th in line of succession after several high-ranking party officials. Moreover, there has been a parade in North Korea to which 60 journalists were invited to attend, which is surprising considering how North Korea didn't allow much media coverage of its nation, in which Kim Jong Il and Kim Jong Un were both present. According to the CNN report, the parade was full of fireworks and applause, yet the central focus remains on the presence of Kim Jong Un together with Kim Jong Il.

It has been speculated for a long time that Kim Jong Il was in a fragile health and experts on North Korea were frantic on predicting what would happen to North Korean politics once he died. However, naming of one of his young sons as a 4-star general seemed a political move in which Kim Jong Il was choosing Kim Jong Un as his successor. Although I am not an expert on politics, and especially in North Korea, it seems to me that there are conflicting political battle going on within North Korea. Kim Jong Il is in a fragile health and wants to appoint one of his sons as his successor, while internal party politics do not allow it to be so, as we can see from what the experts speculate to be the line of succession where Kim Jong Eun lies 6th. Therefore, it would be interesting to see whether Kim Jong Il gets it his way, or the internal party politics play out to produce another leader.

However, another point to consider is that North Korea is adept at manipulating the media; it invites journalists to events they want to show, while banning any other media coverage. Because there is not much information available, North Korea's next move is unpredictable, and it would be worth it to watch out for how the politics end up when Kim Jong Il dies and how it would affect East Asia.