“Winning” in the real world like that of the board game Risk, is subjective to the presumed identity of a nation. For instance, if a nation, such as Switzerland, has built an identity of neutrality, their version of winning may simply be remaining sovereign. Swiss sovereignty could mean that all the nation wants is a functioning economic system, a stable government structure, and a sound public. In contrast, a nation such as the Untied States may assume the role as a beacon for democracy. The United States seeks to establish footholds of democratic principles in other countries, especially developing nations. For the United States to win, democracy would have to be the sole form of government in the world, or at the very least the dominant form of government.
However, the identity of a nation is subject to change. Citizens are able to change the face and therefore change the doctrine of a nation, which ultimately results in a new set of initiatives. These initiatives can range from a new hunt for resources, a new focus on domestic issues rather then those of international importance, or even going as far as a policy of isolationism. Reasons for isolationism or a prelaunch of domestic focus could range from fear of outside influences or a need to maintain stability in the nation. The change in initiatives brings different extents of action in the international arena and there may not always be a goal to “win” simply because a nation has chosen to not play or sit a round out.
The concept of winning in regards to world politics is subject to each nation. The different nations in the world may all have varying values and therefore have different goals to achieve. To win simply means to achieve these goals, but there can come a time when a nation may seek to change their goals in the “game”. This could be from a realization that the nation lacks a capacity to fulfill their current goals or that their sovereignty is in jeopardy.
Chris, I absolutely agree with you that a state's image (in the eyes of both the domestic and international public) often dictates its agenda on the world stage. Your comment on changes in image made me wonder if there are any current examples we can look to, or if you could explain how exactly a populace could redefine an entire state's image, and therefore its objectives. For example, do you think that Americans (or some Americans) achieved this through the election of Barack Obama to the presidency? Or must there be a consensus within the entire population for a change in image/agenda to be made?
ReplyDeleteA good example of this change in image would be Egypt. Although the change isnt necessarily complete because of the presidential monarchy that is in place, it is the people who are bringing about a change in government and national values. In this instance it is not the "people" as a whole but a large percentage of the muslim population within the nation. These individuals are calling for the implementation of Sharia law which doesnt just simply change the legal system but the cultural values as well. There is a change in landscape now within the nation that is becoming anti-western, anti-imperialist, a search for an Egyptian identity (as there hasnt been one solid identity because of the consistent change in control between Ottoman rule, British rule, and post world war territorial disputes). The muslim groups that have taken action or voiced their opposition to the government are doing so because they see their religion as the one constant in their life; the government has failed to truly provide the people with a voice and a proper standard of living. As a result of the actions taken, the government is starting to cede power in some ways or at least alter fundamentals to more closely resemble muslim values/ideals.
ReplyDelete