Political Game Theory

While I don’t keep up very well with the day-to-day happenings in Washington, I do know that when the United States Government isn’t fleeing their offices in the name of homeland security, a lot goes on. I have many friends who work on the Hill, another in the White House, and I like to think I’ve always been very polite to the hot dog vendors in the Federal Triangle part of our Nation’s Capital. Couple those connections with a undergrad concentration in “Government,” I like to think I could skate by in a political conversation over cocktails (or Lemon-Lime Gatorade.)

One thing I did catch wind of over the last few weeks is that President Bush is looking to nominate a John R. Bolton to the post of American Ambassador to the United Nations. As an idealistic governmental mind with no real political experience (I’ve got what they call book learnin’), I have a lot of faith in the United Nations. And after taking a recent jaunt down academic memory lane with a World Economy class, I continue to believe that the UN in time can carry a big stick. But what do I think of John R. Bolton as our Ambassador? I have no idea, since I spend most of my internet time looking for stupid Hoosier legislation that I can make fun of. This much I know, I think John R. Bolton will make a much better UN Ambassador than Michael Bolton would. John would be keeping peace and taking names, while Michael will keep asking the cute Ambassador from Sweden just how is he supposed to live without you.

Turing my attention away from nominations and Grammy-nominated crapballads, I’d like to focus my attention a little further on my working knowledge of the United Nations. I know that with Switzerland and East Timor’s entrance in 2002, they have a roll call of 191 nations. (Switzerland, welcome to the party! Did you guys print the directions off of Mapquest, or did you just circle the block for 57 years?) I know that of the 191 nations, all are entitled to chiming in with their 2 cents. I know that Nicole Kidman overheard an assassination plot and she’s the only suspect Sean Penn has got. I know that 15 nations make up the UN Security Council, where the real global diplomacy magic happens. 10 of these nations come in and out the swinging door every two years, as if the jocks invited them to sit at cool kids table, only to copy their social studies homework (That Argentina is a whiz with geography…)

I also know that since its inception and founding in 1945, there have been 5 permanent member nations on the United Nations Security Council: China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. They all sit there glued to their seats, well-aware of the single-vote veto power that they can wield. Just imagine if France got up to use the bathroom. The other 4 would quickly vote to abolish berets, Gerard Depardieu, and put a whoopee cushion on his francoseat.

What, you thought the UN was a civilized operation? No. Seeing how pointless public debate and discussion has been serving the national governments of the world since the Age of Ancient Greece, the UN has tried a new innovative negotiation strategy. Yelling back and forth across the table in English and Chinese gets nothing done. Well, YAB knows. (As usual.)

They play Risk.

Yes, the game of World Conquest is played by the five countries who are sitting in the seats that could executive exactly that objective. The rules are pretty simple, and are listed mostly in the directions in the box. But the winner gets to take home more than just bragging rights of winning a six-hour board game – they get their way on a debated issue. (Why do you think nothing’s been done in the nation of Georgia? Russia turned in cards and plowed over the UK by rolling a streak of sixes.)

Here’s how UNRisk typically plays out. Each of the five nations take turn placing armies across the board on randomly distributed territories. Each nation also is guaranteed to start with the territories held in their current real-world borders. This means the US gets three territories right off in North America, the UK starts in Northern Europe, France gets Southern Europe, and China and Russia get first crack at taming the mighty Asia. Knowing Russia’s might, China retreats and fortifies in Australia. France moves in and takes the crapshoot that is Africa. And the UK, in pure colonialistic style, abandons their homeland to put together a block of territories in South America. The stage is set for some negotiation.

Russia, not ready to take Asia (knowing they’ll becoming an American shooting gallery, chips away at the French faction in Africa. After a valiant struggle in the Congo and Madagascar, the French Ambassador (and whatever his stance on the issue-at-hand), are eliminated. China, quietly building up armies in Papua-New Guinea, team up with the U.S. to whack away at the Russian Empire, taking Mongolia, Japan, and Kamchatka. The British, now seeing the French aren’t around, engage in a maneuver (mad-cow influenced, no doubt) of reclaiming the homeland. The U.S., however, have already made the sea trip from Iceland, and are waiting at the gates. A second offensive by the Stars and Stripes knocks out their South American position.

Then nothing of any real importance happens for 13 hours.

When it is all said and done, the U.S. took an Army of Chaos route, only seeking to annoy China and Russia by switching alliances back and forth. What do they care? We’re only talking about trade routes in Turkmenistan, anyway. They eventually gave up when they saw that England booted up the Xbox for some France France Revolution. As for China and Russia, YAB will report on the outcome once there is an outcome.