One of the most interesting things about the game of Risk that our class played was how each teams individual goals were actually very close to being accomplished. As a member of the black team, it felt very strange playing Risk without the objective to conquer different territories. This set of rules makes the game much more similar to actual international politics as most of the states in the world are not seeking to conquer the entire world. Rather, they are focused on achieving certain goals that are beneficial to them. The rules that were enforced as well as the different objectives that were in place for this game of Risk made it relatable to international politics as well as a way to see the goals of some of the states involved today.
For example, the goal to control the Ukraine is clearly comparable to Russia currently. They are seeking to establish dominance over an area in which they see as their own, but groups such as the European Union or NATO are plainly against that. In our game, there was two factions seeking to control the Ukraine, with both sides obviously not going to accomplish the goal together. However, the Ukraine was not held by either faction for the necessary amount of turns, so that can relate to the Ukraine simply remaining an autonomous state that is not being controlled by either Russia, or the EU/NATO.
As a member of the black team, I think our objectives are essentially the objectives of most states. Preserve the way things are for our own benefit. War upsets the way things are going, and destroys not only human life, but cultural aspects of life as well. While the alliances we sought to establish do not necessarily stop animosity between states, they protected us from attack and allowed us to do our own thing while other states were busy attempting to aggressively expand.
The schism within the yellow team demonstrates just how easily the international system can be shook, with that split making it easier for the black team to win, while simultaneously weakening one of the most powerful teams on the board at the time. While it might not represent a literal split of a state, it can represent struggle of domestic politics of a very powerful state. When a state cannot agree on the action it needs to take within its own borders, it becomes a lot more difficult for them to be powerful on a global stage.
The green team sought to establish control of resources, which is very similar to the drive for colonies during the 19th and 20th century. So while there is a mix of time periods, the desires of the teams were representative of states at some time.
However, while these do have their similarities with the international system, the game obviously is not the same. It does not account for some of the most important aspects of the international system such as terrorism, nuclear weapons, and economics. All in all, it was an enjoyable game that allowed a new way to look at the class.
Frank,
ReplyDeleteGood observations. As I mentioned on Will's post, I think that the actions in this game were compromised because there was not mutual knowledge of what other states' agendas were. As a member of the Blue team, when we noticed that the Black team was making alliances left and right, we thought nothing of it. However, if we had a foreknowledge that those alliances were contributing to Black's win, maybe we and other teams would've acted differently.
I do agree with you that obviously, war is bad. I think if more countries had mindsets similar to that of the Black team, where things were done in a Liberal viewpoint that cooperation can avoid war, then the world would be better off.
I entirely agree, if the teams objectives were common knowledge, that certainly would have made it more interesting!
DeleteI agree with Elana when she says that it was harder to make certain moves because we were unaware of some teams agendas. I was also on the blue team, and I did find it to be challenging to pick which country to overtake because of other groups alliances. We know that war is bad, however i do believe that if we are to focus on the choices of the game, we would realize that the Black team's method was better because they formed alliances and didnt fight aggressively, so they were able to work together to win.
ReplyDeleteIf we look at the game as a model for international politics, does international ethics come in to play at all? Granted, we were just playing a game in class, but it is interesting to consider what roll, if any, ethics plays in determining states' actions.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your points on how interesting it was the way in which the different objectives of the game displayed many of the conflicts on the international stage today. Especially the part about the Ukraine and the two teams attempting to capture it. One question that I would pose to you is, after having played the game, what definition of international cooperation do you more agree with? Cosmopolitanism of Particularism?
ReplyDelete