#6

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

The “winner” of something is usually the person or group that comes out on top at the conclusion of an event. Whether it be a dance-off, debate, or reality show, the winner is always better than the rest by the end of the “contest”. However, since there is no end to world politics, a “winner” cannot exist. Of course there have been countless wins and losses between countries over the course of history, most commonly found in the form of violence, but a single country cannot possibly become the “winner” of world politics. Therefore, the game of RISK that was played in class was a good representation; every country had its own goals and purposes that it tried to achieve. Countries today do the same, and they probably think pursuing these goals would perhaps lead towards victory, but the real path is endless. For instance, the struggle for global power is always present; conceivably, many countries may think world domination is the ultimate “win”. Mary Rosenblum demonstrates this desire for power in Horizons: “It was important now to press the advantage, and quite possibly to reduce the NAA’s standing in world politics for years to come.” Acquiring the “most” of anything—resources, power, land—may be considered to be a “win”, but even if a country accomplishes the feat, world politics is ever-changing, and the win won’t last.

Instead of each individual country trying to pursue its personal interests and “win”, countries should be willing to allow themselves to “tie”. If the planet was held up in a global “tie” in world politics, then that would more or less mean the achievement of universal equality, and possibly even peace. World politics should not be a race, but instead should be a challenge that countries work together to face and overcome. In terms of wins and losses, in the words of John Hoffman’s article Reconstructing Diplomacy, “it is widely accepted even by statist writers on diplomacy, that the resort to force represents a defeat for diplomacy.” In the eyes of many people, countries consistently involved in violence are actually the “losers” of world politics, regardless of how many battles are won. Hoffman also nicely states, “Force necessarily involves the victory of some and the defeat of others. Hence it is incapable of resolving conflict since when force is used, some of the parties to the dispute will have been suppressed, and they (or their surviving mates) will seek revenge!” The cycle is endless, so states should be willing to give up certain personal interests in exchange for global equality.

Realistically, however, many countries, especially the powerful ones today, are not willing to help distant nations at the price of a lower domestic living standard. Therefore, if a winner must exist, then the race to become the top dog should not involve arms or military power in any way. The true race, especially with today’s global problems, should be of technology, innovations, and effective problem-solving methods. Countries should be competing to solve global crises; doing so would give them worldwide recognition. A nation that is capable of acquiring global recognition and respect comes as close as possible to being crowned the “champion” of world politics.