Risky Business

Some claim that, "all is fair in love and war."  In the game of Diplomatic Risk, I felt that this could not have been more true.  Though general, "constructed" norms and rules existed (i.e. directions of gameplay, verbal rather than physical duels), teams were free to achieve their objectives by various means.  On a micro scale, many features of world politics had to be factored into decisions:  economic resources, military capacity, population, etc.  Teams could not isolate themselves from the "real world" and expect to "win."

One of the most important and most impressive features of the simulation was the fervor with which diplomatic relations were formed.  Although the diplomats had the power to formally announce negotiations, it seemed like all members of a group entity had the capacity to influence the decision.  It was not uncommon for random members to schmooze on the side, for members of one team to eavesdrop on another's conversation, or for the heads of state to talk on their own time.  What was perplexing was when to determine how much information was sufficient to make a decision.  Gathering information took time for the game's rounds, even without the help of bureaucracy and other institutions.  Yet, if a head of state made a snap decision, for more than one team he/she was accused of acting in his/her own personal interests.  For me, this changing atmosphere had a realist mood.  It was essential to have trust in other teams as well as the members of your team, but promises can be broken so easily.  Alliances themselves are risks, so it was surprising that other teams agreed to Blue's for so long.

Thus, Diplomatic Risk has proven that the sphere of world politics is not bound by IR theories, but the social relations framing them.

However, what our Diplomatic Risk failed to consider was the indefiteness of world politics.  Diplomatic Risk is a nice, simulated game because each team has clear objectives and "super powers."  Yet, the goals of a country may change over time.  Additionally, this Risk took a liberal agenda for granted.  All teams participated with an essentially equal voice to better themselves and therefore the whole.  Now, not all countries have the same authority or interest to bargain. 

Risk, as well as world politics, is socio/economically/politically/everything constructed.  With a statement like this:
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The torment of precautions often exceeds the dangers to be avoided.  It is sometimes better to abandon one's self to destiny.  ~Napoleon Bonaparte
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Would not IR theorists have different opinions?  Countries?