6. What might it mean to ‘win’ in actual world politics (as opposed to in a board game simulating some aspects of world politics)?
Winning means to be victorious in a contest or conflict. In world politics there is no real end or conclusion to claim a winner. In RISK the completion of our objective resulted in a win. In world politics it is more the ‘winning’ of small aspects or mini battles to achieve some greater goal. It could be conquering one country after another to acquire an empire or create relations to acquire a natural resource. There are many ways to play the game of world politics and many players who play in different ways. Players can come to agreeable compromises or use force and violence.
Through out history ‘winning’ meant world dominance and in the future some may continue to think that. When playing the game of world politics every player has their own objective as in our game of RISK. They go about achieving their goals through war or alliances. In our game of RISK individual’s objectives were different, some involved acquiring territory, resources or allies. In a game winning is not everything however in world politics winning can be the difference of being free and conquered or having a resource and not.
-Natalie Nishi
World politics can most definitely be compared to a game, just as Natalie focused on doing in her response. Natalie made an excellent point stating, “there are many ways to play the game of world politics and many players who play in different ways”. Thus, world politics is like an endless game without boundaries or rules, and history has definitely showed that different governments have different ways of playing the game. In ancient times, rulers would attempt to expand the reach of their power in order to gain more resources and land. In this case, PTJ’s example using the Athenians and Melians in his first lecture on war is quite fitting. However, with today’s clearly established borders, attempting to completely overtake another country is extremely rare. Instead, modern-day countries use other methods to obtain necessary resources. Rich, powerful countries often simply use money; Chinese energy companies initially started buying up foreign firms and drilling ventures (or shares) as the 21st century began (Asia Times). Backed with endless streams of cash, China National Petroleum Corp and the other giant Chinese firms have gone on a global binge, acquiring resource assets of every imaginable type in staggering profusion in Central Asia, Africa, the Middle East, and Latin America (Asia Times). On the other hand, countries that are not as wealthy often resort to force. In 1990, Iraq invaded Kuwait in an attempt to acquire the oil-rich emirate. Although Iraq claimed that Kuwait was historically part of its land, the rest of the world saw the events as aggression by a large state against a small one (Global Security). Aside from money and force, other countries use deception and excuses. Resource Wars: The New Landscape of Global Conflict is a book written by Michael T. Klare that questions the true motives behind the U.S.’s wars. He claims that aside from wiping out terrorism, “one of the underlying motives for the U.S. intervention in Afghanistan is stabilizing the country for a potential pipeline for Caspian Sea oil and establishing military bases throughout Central Asia to enforce U.S. policy” (Socialist Worker). Thus, countries do indeed play by their own rules to get what they want.
ReplyDeleteNatalie also made a great point at the end of her response by saying that although world politics can be compared to a game, the stakes are much higher. “Losing” one of the “mini battles” may lead to detrimental results for a country, whether or not the loss itself is violent. Obviously, wars themselves cost thousands of lives; to date, there have been approximately 4,693 U.S. and Coalition casualties in Iraq (InfoShout). In the case of Hiroshima, the Manhattan Engineer District estimated that not only did 45,000 people die on the day of the bombing, but 19,000 also died during the next four months; several hundred were expected to die from radiation-induced cancer over the next 30 years (Warbid Forum). On another note, losing a negotiation can be equally as damaging. Many peace negotiations with Joseph Kony have failed, resulting in over 1,000 civilian deaths by the LRA, over 200 children abducted, and 70,000 people forced to flee their homes because of the violence (Resolve Uganda). These two are obviously more dramatic cases, but they clearly show what has the potential of occurring if a state “loses” a battle. Although it isn’t possible to win the entire game of world politics, winning the “mini battles” is an essential part of the game.