It is obvious that a country cannot possibly be the best in the world in every single way. Realistically thinking, since there is no absolute right or wrong in politics, it is very challenging to determine which side is the superior one. Countries can be “winners” even when their situations are exactly the opposite, and this shows us how complex things can get in politics. I reckon a country can be considered a “winner” in two situations: if its citizens are living in prosperity and the country has no significant problems with other countries; or if the country has accomplished its goals. Here are two examples for each type of “winning countries” and I’ll make my conclusion in the end.
Denmark is one of the perfect examples for the first type of winner described above. Its citizens live in wealth, a strong governance system has been established and is working out quite well, and the county is not in a noteworthy political or military-wise fight. However, just because Denmark is currently one of the politically stable and neutral countries does not mean that it has been like this since the establishment of the state. It has done so much during the Second World War to protect its Jewish population and it has been a difficult period for the government but in the end an equal and safe environment has been created for all the citizens. And this indeed does make Denmark a “winner.”
Although majority might argue the opposite, Sudan is another “winner” for me. Yes, the citizens are not living in healthy conditions, let alone wealth. An incredibly serious crime is committed in Darfur hence an ICC arrest warrant was issued in 2008 for the president, Omar al-Bashir. No country in the AU turns him in to the ICC, not even European countries- in fact he has been to Denmark for a conference on climate change and he returned to his country without having any difficulties caused by the arrest warrant. Consequently, he continued to live his life as the president of Sudan. It is true that what al-Bashir is doing by avoiding the ICC trial is not legal at all, but it is also true that he (therefore Sudan) has successfully accomplished his task which was keeping away from the trial. It is illegitimate but it does not change the fact that Sudan is the “winner” since it is the one who has “fooled” the other side, if I may.
As it can be seen, the case of Denmark and Sudan are the two opposite poles and yet, they’re both winners. Denmark is a winner because it maintains security in the country, respects human rights and is an ideal social government and on the other hand Sudan is a winner as well, simply because it has completed its aims, no matter how unusual it might seem. “...complexities and problems of the real world of international relations” are always present, suggests Paul Wilkinson in his book A Short Introduction: International Relations. I couldn’t agree more since I come to the conclusion that even absolutely different countries can be considered “winners.”
Asli made two excellent points concerning what constitutes a “winner” in global politics. However, I do not agree with the second point. Asli stated that “[al-Bashir] (therefore Sudan) has successfully accomplished his task which was keeping away from the trial”, so therefore Sudan is a “winner”. To me, a state that “wins” in world politics involves the entire state, not just what a single, unruly leader’s goals are. If the leader, in this case al-Bashir, fulfills his objective, he might think he has “won”, but the win is only temporary; with the rest of the world against him and his own country in the state of civil war, Sudan is anything but a winner in world politics.
ReplyDeleteIn this case, Hitler may be used as an extreme example. Adolf Hitler held a twelve-year reign over Germany as the Führer, or all-powerful ruler. One of his goals, probably the most well known, was the mass murder of Jews, and most would view this goal as fulfilled: his Nazi Regime led to the annihilation of more than six million Jews in Europe (The Holocaust). Would Hitler’s completion of this goal be considered a “win” for Germany? It is possible that the Nazis and their supporters believed so, but each murder of a Jew—each “win”—turned more of the world against them, building up opposition. Internal resistance existed as well; although the Gestapo and SD harshly suppressed open criticism, opposition ranged from noncompliance with military regulations to attempts to assassinate Hitler, notably an attempt by military officers on July 20, 1944 (U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum). Eventually, the Nazi Regime suffered a miserable defeat, and they were terminated from the game of world politics. Therefore, even if a ruler is completing his goals, if that ruler is performing illegal acts that enrage people all over the world, the fact that such a ruler controls the state in question is a major loss for the country itself.
To further expand on the situation in Sudan, the country itself is in complete turmoil. The ongoing civil war has displaced more than 4 million southerners and killed over 2 million (Global Security). Sudan is completely bisected; the government and Muslim Arabs that consist of the North have been battling southern rebel groups, most notably the SPLA, since 1983. The South consists mainly of black African animists and Christians (Info Please). Southerners want to secede and create a new nation. A novel I am currently reading called What is the What, written by Dave Eggers, tells the life of a man who survived a childhood as one of the Lost Boys of Sudan. He witnessed gruesome cruelty, watched countless deaths, suffered diseases, and stayed in refugee camps for a total of over 18 years. Global attention has been brought to Sudan’s problems, and as Asli stated, the leader, Omar al-Bashir, is wanted by the law. The country is completely divided, led by a heartless tyrant, and many areas are dependent on international help; in its current situation, Sudan is certainly losing the game of world politics, regardless of how often Omar al-Bashir manages to escape arrest.
“War doesn’t determine who’s right. War determines who’s left,” says an anonymous blogger. A war does not have to include troops and yet, if you’re the one who’s left at the end of the war, you are a winner. Omar al-Bashir was both literally and figuratively the one who was left at the end of the “war” between himself and the ICC. Hence I believe he is a winner, and thus this makes Sudan a winner. Sudan is certainly a winner at this point because a country cannot possibly be thought of without its leader.
ReplyDeleteIt all depends on how one defines each of these terms and clearly the way Angela defines a country and I do are not exactly the same. According to Angela, from what I can understand from what she has stated in her comment, the leader of a country comes after the citizens when it comes to generalize the situation of the country. For her, if some of the citizens are living in dire conditions it does not matter what the bureaucrats have done in the international field. Although I absolutely respect that idea, I believe it is the exact opposite. Whoever represents the country in the international area such as the United Nations, it is he/she that sets and tries to achieve the goals of a nation. The leader gets (or does not get) the support of the public at every step, but in the end it is the president who will be the face of a country, thus is the country.
It should not be forgotten that perspective is one of the key points and if the point of view changes, the answer of a question will change too. As for the Hitler example, it really is an extreme case but I think he is a loser. Not solely because he slaughtered millions and millions of completely innocent people (don’t get the idea that I find this action of his normal and acceptable- I really don’t), but because he committed suicide. Like I have stated earlier, I take the leader of a country as the representative of that country. Since he failed to die a natural death and killed himself instead, I find his behavior lost and not leader-like. A bunch of dissimilar opinions may be raised on this very topic and the results will differ with the change in angle and from my point of view both Denmark and Sudan are winners for the grounds I’ve mentioned.