6. What might it mean to "win" in actual world politics (as opposed to in a board game simulating some aspects of world politics)?
During our game of Diplomatic Risk, each person had a different mission to "win". Many were to take over a certain country or region. I don't think that any country can actually "win" in world politics but I think it can grow and advance. In an ideal community, each community would fulfill its social purpose,, "what we want" as a whole. The community would have shared values and ideals and act together. But even if we could get the "ideal community" or Utopian Society, there would always be the outside factors such as poverty, disease, or global climate change that cause problems. Some of these issues could be eliminated, but as demonstrated in the book The Giver, these issues cannot be eliminated without giving up choice and some democratic values. When it comes to "winning" with a stable economic system, the Barter System would be the best system to use. Even with the Barter System in place, each country needs currency, a tempting, more convenient way of business. Also, not all countries may be "winning" countries, which may cause the citizens of "non-winning" countries to try to flee to other nations. Such change would then cause a rapid flow of illegal immigrants and trade, taking away from the "winning" economy. As far as trade, not everybody has the same value of items to exchange which would lead to an eventual Caste System where the rich stay wealthy and the poor stay poor and there is no growth. No matter how hard one country tries to "win", it may advance in some areas, but new problems will always exist.
In extension to Sarah's response, I agree that no nation can ultimately and eternally "win" a long term trial in international politics but can certainly triumph specific political issues. An issue with this question is the definition of winning within politics. Sarah's good reference to the board game exhibits the goal of winning an individual pursuit without compensation or negotiation, which led to the failure of each of the six teams. This ultimate and long term goal for a single accomplishment by each team caused no assembly to win or accomplish their goal. However, in real world politics diplomacy exists, which consist of peaceful negotiation between nations. This deliberating and debate will inevitably lead to a ruling of action as a result. While the states will stress the importance to create a verdict that best accommodates the preponderance, one nation will foreseeably benefit in the ruling over another, thus a form of winning. Another form of winning, not within diplomatic means, is "winning a war." According to the Future of Freedom Foundation, Nazi Germany "lost" World War II, this means that the opposing nations "won" simply because the genocide was stopped. The actual meaning of "winning" in politics is left up to interpretation based upon values. Many believe winning is the best outcome of the majority and existing with the least amount of worldly issues and conflict. Others believe that winning includes superiority and individual advancement. I personally believe certain issues can be won in politics by nations but no single long term victory is capable to exist based upon historical rule.
ReplyDeleteRachel stated, “However, in real world politics diplomacy exists, which consist of peaceful negotiation between nations. This deliberating and debate will inevitably lead to a ruling of action as a result.” According to Webster’s Dictionary, to negotiate is, “to confer with another so as to arrive at the settlement of some matter.” In a settlement one country doesn’t win over another country, instead, both countries find a way to “win” by having a mutual discussion on the topic and agreeing to a solution, or to many solutions. Rachel also touched on the subject of “winning a war”. But in the end, is a war ever truly won? According to Professor Jackson during his War lecture, the behavioral definition of war is “1000 battle-deaths.” During war, all sides have citizens who sacrifice themselves for their countries. Either way, in the end of a war, people die and that does not sound like a “win” to me. It doesn’t matter if you “win” or “lose” a war; as Professor Jackson stated, “fighting a war is expensive…so is preparing or deterring one.” Lastly, according to Professor Jackson, to have international war there needs to be “threats to unleash such violence”. Violence is not a “winning” situation and if we have diplomacy to peacefully resolve issues as stated before, why do we need war to “win”?
ReplyDeleteThe word "win" in world politics is a complicated term. In world politics disputes are frequently settled in the form of compromises. Think of it as buying a house. There’s a price that the buyer or seller is not thrilled about, but both can live with it. That is an ideal settlement in world politics. In situations where there are winners and losers war is almost always a result. At the end of World War I, at the treaty of Versailles, Germany was stripped of all of its colonies and other perks it had enjoyed in its pre-war status. As a result, the Allies were the winners and the Germans were the losers. Some years after this win-lose treaty, World War II broke out and caused a horrific human death toll. Germany’s motives in World War II were probably directly related to their loss in World War I.
ReplyDeleteThe Board game we played had some obvious winners and losers. For example, I was the black team, a military powerhouse centered in Central Europe. I foolishly attacked the blue team in India. The blue team retaliated in Europe and I was soon wiped out with only a couple of players on the map. What if after a couple of turns blue was in dire need of assistance and I was the only one who could help? I wouldn’t be so inclined to help my invaders since I was the loser of a political and military encounter. The board game is a testament to how winners and losers only bring about more war and bloodshed. It is also incredibly applicable to real life world politics.