In the card game we played as kids, winning war meant getting all the cards. In Risk, winning meant different things to different people. But what does it mean in the real thing?
In the real world, much like our Risk board, we all have different objectives. We can all win by a liberal perspective - if all of us accomplishes our different goals, we all can win! However, some of our goals are conflicting. Only by compromise can we all "win." This seems to be less-than-achievable in this world. It's not as easy as saying who wins and who doesn't - there are centuries-old rivalries and religious fundamentalism to contend with, among other things. Then there are the people who want to hold all the cards. We can't all win if we give all of our cards to this nation, so we won't! But that in itself also means that we can't all win.
Is it even possible to win? It truly doesn't seem like we can all win, but perhaps one day when one group's objectives are clear enough, someone may. For now, there doesn't seem to be a way to truly win and keep relations with the rest of the world.
This is a really interesting post. I agree that multilateral action, or compromises, can help countries "win" in the international system.
ReplyDeleteWhat do you think the U.S.' general objectives are in the world?
I also agree with what you wrote. The word "win" seems like such a one-sided term. It implies there is only one sort of outcome. Rather, in the real world, there are many different end results. Like you mentioned, there are various religious, social and political organizations to compromise with and most importantly, interpret what "win" means to them. Therefore, winning isn't one dimensional. It's 'multi-dimensional.'
ReplyDelete