What does “winning” mean in actual world politics? Well, depending on which nation you consider, different states have different objectives and agendas and so each could be different from others. For example, a country (continent) like Australia that one does not usually see being involved with a lot of international relations, its agendas differ from the United States’. However, I feel that winning in actual world politics involves having a “perfect”, for the lack of words, country. A country that is stable enough to sustain itself without support from other states but still maintains in good relation with the other nations for cooperation, if needed.
If we look at our modern world, we see that all of the states present some type of international relations with other nations. Whether it is political or economical, countries comes together to cooperate with others so that it will benefit their own state. In today’s society, it is more difficult for nations to keep up with the rest of the competition if they do not cooperate with other states because most of them are interdependent.
For a country to “win” in world politics today then, a state would need to be able to support itself without the help of other nations. This means that the nation would need to have more than enough money for the country and its citizens. The nation would also have to maintain good relations with other states for cooperation in international issues and not for dependence. Trade with other countries would not be required for economic growth. Also, the state does not have to be a hegemon in which it has power over the rest of the world and controls international institutions. Take for example the current status of the United States, if the United States wants to “win” in world politics, then it would have to completely clear out its debt, not owe China any money, and have enough money to build the nation rather than relying on its citizens taxes and the money borrowed. It would also have to finish its war against Afghanistan and create good relations with the remaining countries.
While I may see this plan as a “winning” state for a nation, others however may feel that it does not complete condition. Depending on the person and the country’s agenda, their view of becoming a “winning” nation is different.
I understand many of your points in the post above and many of them make sense, for example needing to have enough economic stability to support one's country. However, I'm curious about the statement that "nation[s] would also have to maintain good relations with other states for cooperation in the international issues and not for dependence" and how that relates to nations who typically like to stir things up. There are certain nations who simply do not want to cooperate with the global community, how would those nations that do want to cooperate globally deal with that rogue nation (like current North Korea or Iran)? In my post I raise some of the same points as you so I’m mostly playing devil’s advocate here. Let me know what you think!
ReplyDeleteWell...what I meant was that the nation should have a good status with other states. They can be allied or neutral, but as long as they're not in war or trying to start wars with other nations then they are fine. When you mention North Korea and Iran that are often trying to challenge other nation's power, those are the ones who (to me) would not fit the "winning" category of a state. To them, however, winning might mean gaining more power than the United States and other nations. This brings me back to the conclusion of my post where I said that other nations have different goals. In actual world politics today in which states prefer resolving issues through peaceful resolutions, it is difficult for nations to obtain a "winning" status by challenging the powers of others because the global community would be dragged along unlike back then where each state only cared about itself.
ReplyDeleteGarry, I like your standards of complete independence combined with good relations to constitute the "perfect" state. One of my first concerns was addressed by Sarah, but I'm also wondering if you think that these two qualities might be slightly contradictory. In order to be on good terms with literally every other nations, wouldn't it be almost impossible to not be interdependent. In the modern world, it seems that relationships are formed through interdependence: a sort of give and take. If a nation is so economically and resourcefully successful, wouldn't it be the first nation that others turned to for help, or even advice. How would such a state respond if it doesn't want to get involved, but wants to still be on everyone's good side?
ReplyDelete