#6 RW

What might it mean to "win" in actual world politics (as opposed to in a board game simulating some aspects of world politics)?

            To win in a board game means to be victorious within reaching, solely, an individual goal before any other participants. This is applicable to Diplomatic Risk, each of the 6 teams had conflicting goals to reach and the first team to reach such goal would have been declared “winner.” Reflecting some aspects of world politics, Risk showed the malicious measures necessary by the Head of State and Diplomat in order to advance their governances towards winning the game. If the class were to have continued playing until one team “won,” diplomacy would have failed because the preponderance of people (the 5 other teams) would have invariably lost.

            If nations truly strive to co-exist peacefully with one-another, winning cannot ultimately subsist in real world politics. In search of a historical reference of one nations triumph over another, it became evident through numerous articles that the only times states “win” in politics have been through violent and costly wars. “Several united nations won World War II against Nazi Germany,”  “The Vietnamese won” the Vietnam War, and to describe winning in an alternate perspective, “The U.S. was the last man standing in the Cold War,” (Discovery News Source.) These malevolent winnings between nations, due to conflicts in world politics are the only forms historically supported. John Hoffman’s article on “Reconstructing Diplomacy,” states that victory obtained through violent and forceful means, causes suppression and always results with a “loser.” Diplomacy is a means of nations effectively communicating with one another disallowing conflicts in world politics. The goal of diplomacy is to peacefully cohabitate and mandate based upon the best outcome for the greatest amount of people. Because diplomatic measures are taken into account while addressing world politics, finding the best possible outcome for the vast majority is the priority. Consequently ones nation’s dominance causing another nations loss, hinders the ultimate goal (winning) of all nations being able to collectively live with one-another in peaceful means.    

            On the other hand, when addressing international affairs it is often necessary to create laws and ruling to ensure domestic tranquility. When precautions and provisions are made the nations involved try to rule based upon the best outcome for the greatest amount of people. However, this is a difficult task and is nearly impossible to take numerous variables of religious beliefs, government values, and personal reactions, into account. Based upon perception, one country may leave a debate, having “won,” simply because they slightly benefited from outcome over the other nations. An example of how issues of world politics are perceived differently based upon numerous values and religious beliefs, between winning and losing, is the current issue of the Iraq War. Supporters of the war claim we are making progression and presently “winning,” however the article “Progression in Iraq Doesn’t Mean We’re Winning the War,” by Bernard Finel of the World Politics Review, states otherwise. Personal opinions of winning make it difficult, in the aspect of war, to define a winner in world politic. While it is possible for nations to benefit in rulings or kill more soldiers in a war, the only way to win in world politics is to govern according to the beneficiary of the greatest amount of people.