During our game of Risk, the distinction between winning states and losing states was constantly visible; one merely had to glance at the board to gain a visual synopsis of territorial might, resource wars, and vulnerable enclaves, or refer to the diplomatic standing board for an organized depiction of international relations. The real world, however, does not offer such concise, accessible summaries of the status quo. We lack a giant white board which classifies friends and foes. We cannot glance at a map of the world and recognize how many hostile armies surround our borders or discern where every tenable resource lies. Nation-states do not have to portray the truth; as we learned through our respective objectives, there are moments when deception is a much more valuable strategy to employ than honesty. Fabrications (and the ability to perceive of others' fabrications) are essential to the security of both the state and its objective(s). For example, though the black team's objective emphasized the importance of alliances and peace, the black team still exploited the ability to twist the truth in order to achieve its aim.
The achievement of state goals constitutes winning in the real world; this appears similar to the objective of Risk. Yet as Professor Jackson expressed in class, the aftermath of state action within the actual global community includes more than the movement of pieces of plastic across a board. A state cannot simply roll a pair of dice in order to defeat an opponent or gain additional resources. There are social, political, and economic repercussions to every single policy decision enacted by a government. Wars presage the death of soldiers and civilians, economic strain, political discontent or possible schism, and societal disquiet, whether it comes from likeminded warmongers or radical dissidents. Winning in the real world is not exclusively about the changes in territorial labeling. Domestic and foreign accountability plays a major role; a state's action today is not erased away in memory because of a new playing round. Human beings cling to history because we like to believe it helps us predict or even create our future. A state can only win in the real world if it recognizes this strategy. To win, a nation-state must be mindful of its objectives and how it can achieve them by causing the most negligible disturbance possible. Careful calculation results in a carefully crafted image both at home and abroad, and image is paramount in a world where people constantly seek neat and tidy definitions for the complex workings of the world, especially when we lack the organization of a game of Risk.
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
"Winning" in World Politics
“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.
Sunday, October 17, 2010
Reflection 8
Diplomatic Risk was an excellent “lab experience”. I think that the strategy involved apt use of several theories and collaborative work with other Heads of State, and the transfers of power showed realistic negotiations that would have taken place had it been an actual coup. I was on the red team, and we were really thrown off by the creation of the brown state and the transfers of land and forces that happened when the yellow state was kicked to the lonely island of Papua New Guinea. Because we’ve been learning about all these theories involved in International Relations and the way that a constructivist/realist/liberal would act in certain situations, it was interesting to see that no country really follows any theory to the letter. Often times what I saw was a blend of all three theories and no real general disregard for other nations. The movement from alliance to neutrality to war was very realistic as it was precipitated when the blue state hegemon waged war. Although wars are surely determined by much more than the roll of dice, I believe that so many factors in war are actually left to chance that certainly impact the outcome of a war and how troops are affected.
Salome was also a great experience for me. It’s a little known fact that I’ve sang opera for about 8 years and have performed, so going to the opera and being in the audience was one of the coolest things for a change in perspective. I thought that the story line was a little weird and kind of crazy, because Salome herself seemed to be a little troubled, but other than that, but from a performance perspective- I thought that the entire thing was executed fabulously. The talented actors and actresses were convincing and had beautiful voices, and I stayed engaged the entire time. I was thankful for the great seats we got, right in the orchestra section, because that definitely allowed me to see things that seats further back couldn’t (like the actual blood like substance that kept being flung around from the prophet’s head). Some of the German jokes were lost on me, because I didn’t understand until later the pun between Tetrarch and Tetrarsh...but the dramatic aspects of the opera made it an experience that I never will forget. The Kennedy Center is certainly a gorgeous venue and I will always love attending swank functions that allow me to get really dressed up and join members of society who do this kind of thing on just a regular Tuesday night. I hope to do it again sometime!
Reflection 8
Salome was an entirely new experience for me. Not only was it my first opera, it was also my first journey to the Kennedy Center. However, the greatest part of the night was the chance to further bond with my floor. Since the school year has started, I have felt a strong bond between the individuals on my floor and myself. I have been blessed with the opportunity to meet such wonderful people that have surely made my transition into college a whole lot easier.
I can easily say that my greatest decision in college thus far has been to partake in the University College program. My floor has been a source of intellectual excitement, laughs, and overall joy. This isn’t to say I don’t have friends outside of my floor, I simply mean that my floor is a refresh point. I can rely on Letts 6 South to be a place for me to have fun and learn more then I ever expected to and I am deeply indebted to them for that.
Reflection #8
The events of this week convinced me that I am so incredibly fortunate to attend American and participate in UC World Politics. Of course this had never been a question in my mind; it has now simply become solidified in the aftermath of operatic spectacle, erratic games of Risk, and a visit from a friend back home. My friend Reid has had a much more tumultuous transition to college life than I have, due to a myriad of unfortunate circumstances (rooming with hostile sophomores, a lackluster class schedule, "temporary" friends). Hosting him at American forced me to realize that everyone isn't quite so lucky when it comes to finding a post-secondary school match. Reid was amazed by our floor; I've told him countless stories about Letts 6 (all good things, of course!), but I don't think he quite believed me when I told him what a unique, fantastic dynamic we have. It shocked him that people left their doors open, shared food and ironing boards , and baked cakes to celebrate birthdays. He couldn't believe that we played a board game in class and made it applicable to the workings of the world beyond our campus. He envied the fact that I can hop on the metro to listen to protestors outside the White House, explore the Library of Congress, or hear an opera in German. This may be due to the fact that I'm living in the nation's capital and he's living in upstate New York. However, I also think this wanderlust and constant adventuring is inspired by American's encouragement (and the occasional mandate) that we venture beyond Ward Circle and Tenleytown. Our university, and SIS especially, constantly reminds us that we're not merely students stuck behind book bindings, learning about the way people live and clash and collaborate. We are an integral part of that structure, and will play an even greater role once we relinquish the title of student. I think that mutual recognition between students and faculty at American is my favorite part of life here, and something that other schools may lack.
Reflection 8
This week was a hectic week for all, I am sure. Not only did most of us have midterms in our other classes, we had a paper midterm in World Politics and the UC event at the Kennedy Center. Because of this, it was especially nice to not have homework in WP, and just have a game to play.
The game ended up being so much fun and a lot more challenging than I expected. I had never played Risk before, but my dad and brother are both fervent Risk fans, so I had seen the game played multiple times before. I was most excited about the diplomacy aspect of the game, because it allowed for more people to contribute to the game, other than just the head of state. It is really fascinating to try and figure out the objectives of the other teams, and try and see what IR theory PTJ might have meant by the objectives. Who is the realist? The constructivist? The liberal? Who encompasses multiple theories? It’s nice to be able to use IR theory in a hands-on approach, and to have fun while doing so.
Sunday, October 10, 2010
Reflection 7
The simulation was not what I expected it to be. In all of our preparation and talking and brainstorming, I did not anticipate the stressful situation that followed having someone try to break down the basic tenets of our proposition. As part of the Sierra Club, we took a little different approach than what would have normally been expected, because we had a focus on preserving American jobs and preserving the environment at the same time. We were able to back up our claims with actual facts, which adds credibility, but extemporaneously speaking has never been my forte, and probably never will be. The preparation that went into my concluding speech seemed a little lost on me it was pointed out that we took the most unconventional approach possible for the Sierra Club.
However, I enjoyed having the opportunity to apply theory and fact together and come up with a solution to a problem that could actually present itself to the US government. Learning about the diesel and hybrid models out there and comparing/contrasting the two offered insight I didn’t know would be so useful, but I discussed it with my dad (who candidly already knew everything I thought I could teach him) and it was nice to learn about something that I never really took the time to explore before. The president made an interesting comment about “multi-modal literacy”, and how in 2050, if we’d want to know how to present our ideas...we’d have to become completely fluent in multi-modal literacy. I thought this was a really eloquent way of putting something that talks about a constantly mutable and changing society that is garnering different techniques to reach new audiences in different ways. This speaks to our World Politics class, as Skyping via classroom is actually a viable option. All in all, I think that the minor simulation taught me several things; how camera shy I am, what kind of adrenaline rush you get from having exactly 2 minutes to talk about something you know you can ramble on for hours about, and putting yourself in a pressurized situation and coming out just fine. :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)