Diplomatic Risk: Global Powers and the Shortcomings of Realism

Jack Cahalane

Professor Shirk

POLS 170

May 4, 2022

Diplomatic Risk

For our last week of classes, our class played Diplomatic Risk in order to visualize International Relations firsthand. From my point of view, I perceived that the game portrayed the historical or future hypothetical interactions of major powers in the world through the lens of conflict. In turn, I believe that it can be argued that the Diplomatic Risk simulation played in class (at least how it was played in our class simulation without extensive bargaining or diplomatic incentives other than to go to war) relates to the idea of the international relations school of Realism. As a result of the simplified nature of Diplomatic Risk, I believe this notion coincides with the shortcomings of Realism: the simplicity and perception which ignores incentives which do not promote morality or coalition building.

    The game was prepared using a world map board from the actual game of Risk and consisted of five teams: black, blue, green, red, and yellow. Each of these five teams had approximately five members each, encompassing the entire class. In turn, each team had to pick one Diplomat and one Head of State. The Diplomats of each team were in charge of altering the Diplomatic Status of each respective team. The Diplomatic Status of each time was measured by three levels: Alliance, Neutral, and War. Once per round, the Diplomats convened and could change the Diplomatic Status of each time. The Diplomats could also deliberate with the other Diplomats in order to determine equivalent statuses between two teams and could also choose to not go into an Alliance, to go Neutral, or to go to War with another team even if the team changed their Diplomatic Status relative to the respective team. In turn, the Heads of State, which were designated as the Presidents of each team, were responsible in having the final say and to make the concrete decisions on the game board. While the Diplomats were the primary arbitrators between teams, the Presidents were the ones who guided the decisions of the Diplomats. Additionally, each team was assigned a unique Secret Power which they could utilize once per game in order to gain an advantage that other teams would not have access to along with a goal. In order to win, the respective team had to accomplish their unique goal before the other teams did so. 

From my point of view, I saw each team as potentially representing a world power. This lens can be attributed either to the potential interactions between global superpowers should a major global conflict occur or through a historical perspective relative to past global conflicts. From a historical perspective, this can be visualized relative to World War I. The major belligerents during this period were the likes of: the Ottoman Empire, the Tsardom of Russia, German Empire, Austria-Hungary, the British Empire, France, and the United States of America. In respect to the goals of each team, it can be argued that the German Empire along with Austria-Hungary acted in accordance with the goals of the Yellow Team which sought to control 12 territories as these powers sought to take over Europe. The British Empire and France can be attributed to the Green Team due to the importance stressed on resources from colonies while maintaining an aggressive defense. The Red Team and Blue Teams could be attributed to the battles waged between the Tsardom of Russia along with the Ottoman Empire which embroiled themselves in a territorial tug of war similar to the objectives of both teams relative to Ukraine. The Black Team is arguably the hardest to attribute to a particular global power, although the goals of Black Team most closely resemble the armed neutrality of Switzerland, it can be argued that the goal of the Black Team could resemble the goals of America before being forced to enter into the war. As a result, I think that this hypothetical structuring of a historical narrative relative to Diplomatic Risk portrays the success of the game in illuminating international relations in a simplified manner. I think in this simplified manner, this notion portrays the school of thought of Realism in international relations, “Morgenthau is deeply aware that states…do not live up to universal moral laws that govern the universe…Morgenthau postulates a realm international politics in which the amoral behavior of political man is not only permissible but prudent (Tickner 4). Relative to our simulation of Diplomatic Risk, our class had few incentives to promote alliances, bargaining, and diplomatic exchanges. The only true bargains made were for troops for war. Thus, morality was not promoted in our simulation while every incentive pointed towards the promotion of war (except for Black Team due to their objective) falling in line with this notion of Realism. As a result, in a world wherein true incentives are in place to engage in trade, diplomatic negotiations, alliances, and foreign aid, I believe it therefore shows the shortcomings of Realism in the real world. I think the most obvious, yet important takeaway, is that the world is far more complex than Diplomatic Risk. Although our simulation was an entertaining and valuable way of perceiving international relations, it was a simplified analysis. As the world through international relations is an incredibly complex microcosm layered through the notions of historical, religious, geographical, and diplomatic ties. Thus, broadly speaking I believe that although Diplomatic Risk may be able to portray the school of Realism through the machinations of a hypothetical and historical global war, I think that it gives more credence to the Constructivist or Liberalist schools of thought as these schools portray a more complex picture of the world relative to international relations.

Works Cited

Hopf, Ted. "The promise of constructivism in international relations theory." International security 23, no. 1 (1998): 171-200.

Moravcsik, Andrew. Liberalism and international relations theory. Cambridge, MA: Center for International Affairs, Harvard University, 1992.

Tickner, J. Ann. “Hans Morgenthau’s Principles of Political Realism: A Feminist Reformulation (1988).” International Theory, 1995, 53–71. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-23773-9_4.