Winning in Risk involves taking the entire board - holding every single territory. If real life was like Risk, I imagine that dominating the entire globe in such a fashion would be tantamount to winning too. After all, if you did that, you wouldn't have to worry about international relations anymore - there would be no more "international" to worry about.
However, that is simply not possible in the real world, because over-extension is a real possibility - and unlike Risk, you can't just hold on for a single, final turn to win. Winning in real life is winning in the long run, and to that extent a victorious nation would need to possess the most powerful economy in the world, the most educated citizen base, the most powerful military, AND have the majority of the world's resources/transnational corporation's headquarters located within its borders. This would lead to winning, AS LONG AS the hegemon (as this hypothetical winner would surely be) also possesses peace with all other nations for at least a turn.
In real-life, I imagine the way to win would be to take yourself out of the game. The game of life involves worrying about other players and their goals and means. A hegemon with the strongest economy, tons of resources, and a steady supply of brilliant citizens to keep the economic infrastructure up to speed would help keep globalization at bay. A nation that is truly on the track of winning would not need any other country - maybe to export to, but certainly not to lean on. This winning nation would also need an uber-military, so other countries do not think about disrupting the hegemon for fear of being destroyed. Finally, peace needs to exist between the hegemon and all other nations - not most, all. If all nations are friendly with the hegemon at the moment all of those nations become to afraid to alter that friendly status quo, AND at the moment the other nations need the hegemon's relative health to provide goods and services, the hegemon would win.
One last PS - globalization is a dirty word for a winning nation. The reason for that is simple. Globalization is not winning; it is an intertwining of all the nations into one loose web of dependency, something President Obama seems to appreciate the idea of. However, we all know how tenuous alliances are; any dependency at ALL on another nation leaves you vulnerable. Globalization extends the game - makes it a peaceful one, but makes it one that drags on and never sees one clear winner. Only by removing yourself from the global order and providing a dominating presence can a nation also remove itself from the rules and boundaries of the game and assume a PTJ-like presence over the rest of the field.
I agree with a lot of your post and think you isolate some key points as to what a world of "winning" would look like.
ReplyDeleteJust to play devil's advocate, aren't there ways globalization could be used to build up a country's economy, education base, and military?
For example, the U.S. arguable has a poor K-12 STEM education base. While many solutions have been proposed, one area I feel that addresses education, the economy, and the U.S.' military, is immigration. Status quo visa policy allows high skilled immigrants to enter the U.S. via H-1B, EB, and various other visas. These skilled immigrants come to the U.S., work at universities, attend graduate school, teach undergraduate classes, etc. It seems that globalization allows a flow of knowledge capital between countries which could significantly benefit the U.S. These immigrants can and do teach American students which improves our education base. Additionally, these immigrants work in high tech industries, such as the semiconductor industry, which are vital to both the U.S.' economy and military. The research high skilled immigrants due inevitably flows over to the U.S.' military capabilities. To expand on the semiconductor example, the research done in this area allows the U.S. to build better microchips which are used within the military.
Also, just to clarify, does the world you envision as "winning" consist of one nation that's entirely controlled by the U.S.? Could it also be considered a "win" if the U.S. was substantially farther than other nations both economically and militarily, to a point where we would functionally control the world due to our geopolitical influence?
Of course imports in the form of "brain drain" from other countries, or skilled immigrants entering the USA, is something to be encouraged. That kind of free import is a welcome gift that comes to America because countries LIKE America are so close to winning (comparatively). However, I maintain that a policy of globalization precludes winning for any given country. If a state is actively tied up in any other state, that means it is impacted by what happens to that other state. It also means that our hegemon is engaged strongly with the relationship between itself and other nations - in other words, it is STILL PLAYING. How can you have "won" if you are still playing the game?
ReplyDeleteThat segues into your second point, Toby. There is only one way to end the game if you are a hegemon. This is to be, in your words "substantially farther than other nations" in the four aspects I described in my main post above - while also maintaining peaceful relations with every other nation. If this happens - complete peace with everyone, along with overwhelming superiority in every tangible metric - you (the hegemon) "win", because no nation is going to want to engage you in any way that could lead to your getting angry, and indeed will only want to curry your favor. You will not need to work to keep yourself alive, or to wheedle or manipulate - you have completely removed yourself from the realm of players, and are simply an overseer. You win.
As a PS, an ersatz way to attain the win is to militarily dominate the whole world "Risk" style. However, this victory is inevitably short-lived, because empires decay. To continue the Risk analogy, this would simply be turning the entire gameboard into your state - the game would still be played, but within your own borders, no matter what!
What you need, as a victory-minded nation, is not a collection of dissimilar regions and peoples that will cause trouble, as people are wont to do when they are lorded over. Instead, you need a state with steady borders and a common history - that is so dominant in every sphere that other countries do not dare to cross it. In that way, the citizens of your state do not want to leave or dissent nearly so much (some dissent is inevitable, but nobody wants to leave the winning team); meanwhile, other countries are too busy playing the game with one another to worry about the non-aggressive hegemon. By removing yourself, you can watch instead of participate - and if you DO participate, it is necessarily on your own terms. THAT'S winning.