I was home for fall break and over dinner I began to explain Diplomatic Risk to my family. I explained how each team had a head of state to manage troop movement and a diplomat to represent them in the World Council. I continued that each team had an objective and a super power, and that not every team was trying to conquer the globe. At this statement my boyfriend, Nathan, interjected, “The point of risk is world domination! Just remember that!” I reminded that it was Diplomatic Risk, but he didn’t care because he found our Risk adaptations to be superfluous.
As I reflected on the exchange I realized that many people may think this way about international relations. The majority of citizens on this globe have not studied different theories of international relations ad therefore may consider world domination or being #1 as being the most important thing in global politics. Is the majority of the world made up of realists? I wouldn’t go as far as to assert that such persons are realists, but I think it can be noted that realist ideals are instilled in us throughout our lives.
As a kid, I spent most of my grade school years in North Carolina, where they don’t hesitate to brag about the Roanoke settlement that birthed the nation. Though Europe wasn’t sending armies, they sent settlers to establish influence, dominance and trade ports across the ocean. The native peoples were mistreated and yet all of this is overlooked as we honor the early years of America. From the beginning of our academic ventures, we are taught that global dominance and forcing one’s control onto unwilling persons is okay if the result is beneficial (the end justifies the means). Popular culture is filled with books and movies recounting historic tales of bravery, conquest and victory. To many people, war and dominance, the objectives of normal Risk, are adventurous, courageous, and perfectly acceptable as a means for handling global affairs. Nature teaches us not to lose and not to settle for less when you can be number one. Why should international relations be any different?
As a human rights activist and a person who favors a mix of liberal and constructivist ideals, I find it extremely important to remind those around us that diplomacy is an option, and a favorable one at that! When the world views something almost universally through a realist lens, its vital that someone stands up and says, “Let’s play DIplomatic Risk!”
This is an interesting post. I personally seem to think that the world is oriented in a realist framework. Meaning, I feel that realism has the evidentiary support to justify it as a universal view on the world.
ReplyDeleteYour post makes me wonder the implications of solely "realist viewed" world. What do you think?
As my post states, most people are not IR theorists and have not studied IR theories and therefore may perceive the world as a realist does. If you think about it, diplomacy isn't second nature. A child's first reaction when angered is to hit and fight. My mom always told me, "It's much harder to be nice than it is to be mean." I think that this is true for how humans operate. We have to learn and try hard to be diplomatic in our responses and actions. When people think about international relations they think about their country versus the world. When we watch movies everything is black and white: the good guys versus the bad guys. A solely realist viewed world would be void of diplomacy and would operate only on an"every man for himself" kind of mentality.
ReplyDelete