Geopolitics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Geopolitics (from Greek γη ge "earth/land" and πολιτική politikē "politics") is the study of the effects of geography (human and physical) on international politics and international relations.[1] Geopolitics is a method of studying foreign policy to understand, explain and predict international political behaviour through geographical variables. These include area studies, climate, topography, demography, natural resources, and applied science of the region being evaluated.[2]

Geopolitics focuses on political power in relation to geographic space. In particular, territorial waters and land territory in correlation with diplomatic history. Academically, geopolitics analyses history and social science with reference to geography in relation to politics. Also, the study of geopolitics includes the ensemble of global politicians and the way in which they impact the societies they lead.

American geopolitical doctrine[edit]

Alfred Thayer Mahan and sea power[edit]

Alfred Thayer Mahan, a frequent commentator on world naval strategic and diplomatic affairs, believed that national greatness was inextricably associated with the sea—and particularly with its commercial use in peace and its control in war. Mahan's theoretical framework came from Antoine-Henri Jomini, and emphasized that strategic locations (such as chokepoints, canals, and coaling stations), as well as quantifiable levels of fighting power in a fleet, were conducive to control over the sea. He proposed six conditions required for a nation to have sea power:

  1. Advantageous geographical position;
  2. Serviceable coastlines, abundant natural resources, and favorable climate;
  3. Extent of territory
  4. Population large enough to defend its territory;
  5. Society with an aptitude for the sea and commercial enterprise; and
  6. Government with the influence and inclination to dominate the sea.[3]

Emil Reich[edit]

The Austro-Hungarian historian Emil Reich (1854–1910) is considered to be the first having coined the acceptance in English[4] as early as 1902 and later in 1904 in his book Foundations of Modern Europe.[5]

Mackinder and the Heartland theory[edit]

Sir Halford Mackinder's Heartland concept showing the situation of the "pivot area" established in the Theory of the Heartland. He later revised it to mark Northern Eurasia as a pivot while keeping area marked above as Heartland.

Sir Halford Mackinder's Heartland Theory initially received little attention outside geography, but would later influence the foreign policies of world powers.[6] His formulation of the Heartland Theory was set out in his article entitled "The Geographical Pivot of History", published in England in 1904. Mackinder's doctrine of geopolitics involved concepts diametrically opposed to the notion of Alfred Thayer Mahan about the significance of navies (he coined the term sea power) in world conflict. He saw navy as a basis of Colombian era empire (roughly from 1492 to the nineteenth century), and predicted the twentieth century to be domain of land power. The Heartland theory hypothesized a huge empire being brought into existence in the Heartland—which wouldn't need to use coastal or transoceanic transport to remain coherent. The basic notions of Mackinder's doctrine involve considering the geography of the Earth as being divided into two sections: the World Island or Core, comprising Eurasia and Africa; and the Peripheral "islands", including the Americas, Australia, Japan, the British Isles, and Oceania. Not only was the Periphery noticeably smaller than the World Island, it necessarily required much sea transport to function at the technological level of the World Island—which contained sufficient natural resources for a developed economy.

Mackinder posited that the industrial centers of the Periphery were necessarily located in widely separated locations. The World Island could send its navy to destroy each one of them in turn, and could locate its own industries in a region further inland than the Periphery (so they would have a longer struggle reaching them, and would face a well-stocked industrial bastion). Mackinder called this region the Heartland. It essentially comprised Central and Eastern Europe: Ukraine, Western Russia, and Mitteleuropa.[7] The Heartland contained the grain reserves of Ukraine, and many other natural resources. Mackinder's notion of geopolitics was summed up when he said:

Who rules Central and Eastern Europe commands the Heartland. Who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island. Who rules the World-Island commands the World.

His doctrine was influential during the World Wars and the Cold War, as Germany and later Russia each made territorial strides toward the "Heartland".

Spykman and the "Rimland"[edit]

Nicholas J. Spykman is both a follower and critic of geostrategists Alfred Mahan, and Halford Mackinder. His work is based on assumptions similar to Mackinder's, including the unity of world politics and the world sea. He extends this to include the unity of the air. Spykman adopts Mackinder's divisions of the world, renaming some:

  1. The Heartland;
  2. The Rimland (analogous to Mackinder's "inner or marginal crescent" also an intermediate region, lying between the Heartland and the marginal sea powers); and
  3. The Offshore Islands & Continents (Mackinder's "outer or insular crescent").[8]

Under Spykman's theory, a Rimland separates the Heartland from ports that are usable throughout the year (that is, not frozen up during winter). Spykman suggested this required that attempts by Heartland nations (particularly Russia) to conquer ports in the Rimland must be prevented. Spykman modified Mackinder's formula on the relationship between the Heartand and the Rimland (or the inner crescent), claiming that "Who controls the rimland rules Eurasia. Who rules Eurasia controls the destinies of the world." This theory can be traced in the origins of Containment, a U.S. policy on preventing the spread of Soviet influence after World War II (see also Truman Doctrine).

Huntington, Brzezinski and the Grand Chessboard[edit]

Since the time of Spykman, the word geopolitics has been applied to other theories—most notably Huntington's theory of a Clash of Civilizations and Braudel's Grammaire des civilisations. In a peaceable world, neither sea lanes nor surface transport are threatened, so all countries are effectively close enough to one another physically; rather, it is in the realm of international relations that differences and conflict is found, and the concept of Geopolitics has therefore migrated towards this arena—especially in its popular usage. Huntington's geopolitical model, especially the structures for North Africa and Eurasia, is largely derived from the "Intermediate Region" geopolitical model first formulated by Dimitri Kitsikis and published in 1978.[9] Following Huntington and Mackinder, Zbigniew Brzezinski, in his book The Grand Chessboard. American Primary and its Geostrategic Imperatives (1997), developed a strategy for the US to retain its global hegemony. He renamed the Eurasian Heartland a Chessboard, and defined five countries as "pivots" to control the Eurasian landmass: France, Germany, Russia, China, and India. As a National Security Advisor for various presidents, Brzezinski's ideas have influenced US foreign policy since 1977.

German geopolitics[edit]

German Geopolitik is characterized by the belief that life of States—being similar to those of human beings and animals—is shaped by scientific determinism and social Darwinism. German geopolitics develops the concept of Lebensraum (vital space) that is thought to be necessary to the development of a nation like a favorable natural environment would be for animals.

Friedrich Ratzel[edit]

Friedrich Ratzel (1844–1904), influenced by thinkers such as Darwin and zoologist Ernst Heinrich Haeckel, contributed to 'Geopolitik' by the expansion on the biological conception of geography, without a static conception of borders. Positing that states are organic and growing, with borders representing only a temporary stop in their movement, he held that the expanse of a state's borders is a reflection of the health of the nation—meaning that static countries are in decline. Ratzel published several papers, among which was the essay "Lebensraum" (1901) concerning biogeography. Ratzel created a foundation for the German variant of geopolitics, geopolitik. Influenced by the American geostrategist Alfred Thayer Mahan, Ratzel wrote of aspirations for German naval reach, agreeing that sea power was self-sustaining, as the profit from trade would pay for the merchant marine, unlike land power.

The geopolitical theory of Ratzel has been criticized as being too sweeping, and his interpretation of human history and geography being too simple and mechanistic. In his analysis of the importance of mobility, and the move from sea to rail transport, he failed to predict the revolutionary impact of air power. Critically, he also underestimated the importance of social organization in the development of power.[10]

The association of German Geopolitik with Nazism[edit]

After World War I, the thoughts of Rudolf Kjellén and Ratzel were picked up and extended by a number of German authors such as Karl Haushofer (1869–1946), Erich Obst, Hermann Lautensach and Otto Maull. In 1923, Karl Haushofer founded the Zeitschrift für Geopolitik (Journal for Geopolitics), which was later used in the propaganda of Nazi Germany. The key concepts of Haushofer's Geopolitik were Lebensraum, autarky, pan-regions, and organic borders. States have, Haushofer argued, an undeniable right to seek natural borders which would guarantee autarky.

Haushofer's influence within the Nazi Party has recently been challenged,[11] given that Haushofer failed to incorporate the Nazis' racial ideology into his work. Popular views of the role of geopolitics in the Nazi Third Reich suggest a fundamental significance on the part of the geo-politicians in the ideological orientation of the Nazi state. Bassin (1987) reveals that these popular views are in important ways misleading and incorrect. Despite the numerous similarities and affinities between the two doctrines, geopolitics was always held suspect by the National Socialist ideologists. This suspicion was understandable, for the underlying philosophical orientation of geopolitics did not comply with that of National Socialism. Geopolitics shared Ratzel's scientific materialism and determinism, and held that human society was determined by external influences—in the face of which qualities held innately by individuals or groups were of reduced or no significance. National Socialism rejected in principle both materialism and determinism and also elevated innate human qualities, in the form of a hypothesized 'racial character,' to the factor of greatest significance in the constitution of human society. These differences led after 1933 to friction and ultimately to open denunciation of geopolitics by Nazi ideologues.[12] Nevertheless, German Geopolitik was discredited by its (mis)use in Nazi expansionist policy of World War II and has never achieved standing comparable to the pre-war period.

French approach on geopolitics[edit]

French geopolitical doctrines lie broadly in opposition to German Geopolitik and reject the idea of a fixed geography. French geography is focused on the evolution of polymorphic territories being the result of mankind actions. It also relies in the consideration of long time periods through refusal of taking specific events into account. This method has been theorized by Professor Lacoste according to three principles: Representation; Diachronie; and Diatopie.

In The Spirit of the Laws, Montesquieu outlined the view that man and societies are influenced by climate. He believed that hotter climates create hot-tempered people and colder climates aloof people, whereas the mild climate of France is ideal for political systems. Considered as one of the founders of French geopolitics, Élisée Reclus, is the author of a book considered as a reference in modern geography (Nouvelle Géographie universelle). Alike Ratzel, he considers geography through a global vision. However, in complete opposition to Ratzel's vision, Reclus considers geography not to be unchanging; it is supposed to evolve commensurately to the development of human society. His marginal political views resulted in his rejection by academia.

French geographer and geopolitician Jacques Ancel is considered to be the first theoretician of geopolitics in France, and gave a notable series of lectures at the Carnegie foundation and published "Géopolitique" in 1936. Like Reclus, Ancel rejects German determinist views on geopolitics (including Haushofer's doctrines).

Braudel's broad view used insights from other social sciences, employed the concept of the longue durée, and downplayed the importance of specific events. This method was inspired by the French geographer Paul Vidal de la Blache (who in turn was influenced by German thought, particularly that of Friedrich Ratzel whom he had met in Germany). Braudel's method was to analyse the interdependence between individuals and their environment.[13] Vidalian geopolitics is based on varied forms of cartography and on possibilism (founded on a societal approach of geography—i.e. on the principle of spaces polymorphic faces depending from many factors among them mankind, culture, and ideas) as opposed to determinism.

Due to the influence of German Geopolitik on French geopolitics, the latter were for a long time banished from academic works. In the mid-1970s, Yves Lacoste—a French geographer who was directly inspired by Ancel, Braudel and Vidal de la Blache—wrote La géographie, ça sert d'abord à faire la guerre (Geography first use is war)in 1976. This book—which is very famous in France—symbolizes the birth of this new school of geopolitics (if not so far the first French school of geopolitics as Ancel was very isolated in the 1930s–40s). Initially linked with communist party evolved to a less liberal approach. At the end of the 1980s he founded the Institut Français de Géopolitique (French Institute for Geopolitics) that publishes the Hérodote revue. While rejecting the generalizations and broad abstractions employed by the German and Anglo-American traditions (and the new geographers), this school does focus on spatial dimension of geopolitics affairs on different levels of analysis. This approach emphazises the importance of multi-level (or multi-scales) analysis and maps at the opposite of critical geopolitics which avoid such tools. Lacoste proposed that every conflict (both local or global) can be considered from a perspective grounded in three assumptions:

  1. Representation: Each group or individuals is the product of an education and is characterized by specific representations of the world or others groups or individuals. Thus, basic societal beliefs are grounded in their ethnicity or specific location. The study of representation is a common point with the more contemporary critical geopolitics. Both are connected with the work of Henri Lefebvre (La production de l'espace, first published in 1974)
  2. Diachronie. Conducting an historical analysis confronting "long periods" and short periods as the prominent French historian Fernand Braudel suggested.
  3. Diatopie: Conducting a cartographic survey through a multiscale mapping.

Connected with this stream, and former member of Hérodote editorial board, the French geographer Michel Foucher developed a long term analysis of international borders. He coined various neologism among them: Horogenesis: Neologism that describes the concept of studying the birth of borders, Dyade: border shared by two neighbouring states (for instance US territory has two terrestrial dyades : one with Canada and one with Mexico). The main book of this searcher "Fronts et frontières" (Fronts and borders) first published in 1991, without equivalent remains as of yet untranslated in English. Michel Foucher is an expert of the African Union for borders affairs.

More or less connected with this school, Stéphane Rosière can be quoted as the editor in Chief of the online journal L'Espace politique [1], this journal created in 2007 became the most prominent French journal of political geography and Geopolitics with Hérodote.

A much more conservative stream is personified by François Thual was a French expert in geopolitics, and a former official of the Ministry of Civil Defence. Thual taught geopolitics of the religions at the French War College, and has written thirty books devoted mainly to geopolitical method and its application to various parts of the world. He is particularly interested in the Orthodox, Shiite, and Buddhist religions, and in troubled regions like the Caucasus. Connected with F. Thual, Aymeric Chauprade, former professor of geopolitics at the French War College and now member of the extreme-right party "Front national", subscribes to a supposed "new" French school of geopolitics which advocates above all a return to realpolitik and "clash of civilization" (Huntington). The thought of this school is expressed through the French Review of Geopolitics (headed by Chauprade) and the International Academy of Geopolitics. Chauprade is a supporter of a Europe of nations, he advocates a European Union excluding Turkey, and a policy of compromise with Russia (in the frame of a Eurasian alliance which is en vogue among European extreme-right politists) and supports the idea of a multipolar world—including a balanced relationship between China and the U.S.

Russian geopolitics[edit]

The modern day Russian geopolitics is centered on Eurasianist tradition and is highly interlinked with politics. The trauma of the disintegration of the Soviet Union left behind various views ranging from moderate – stressing the unique position of Russia between Europe and Asia – to more extreme – arguing for Greater Russia aspirations (renaissance of Russian empire in the borders of the former Soviet Union).

Meta-geopolitics[edit]

The framework of Meta-geopolitics, proposed by Nayef Al-Rodhan combines traditional and new dimensions of geopolitics to offer a multidimensional view of power and power relationships.[14] In this framework, the importance of geography is superseded by the combination of hard- and soft- power tools that states can employ to preserve and obtain power. Meta-geopolitics defines seven key dimensions of state power that include social and health issues, domestic politics, economics, environment, science and human potential, military and security issues, and international diplomacy.[15] The Meta-geopolitics framework allows for the assessment of relative strengths and weaknesses as well as predictions about future trends. Furthermore, while this analytical grid is relevant for states, it also applies to private and transnational entities, which are playing an increasingly important role in contemporary geopolitics.[16]

Non-interventionism[edit]

Non-interventionism, the geopolitical policy whereby a nation seeks to avoid alliances with other nations in order to avoid being drawn into wars not related to direct territorial self-defense. An original more formal definition is that Non-intervention is a policy characterized by the absence of interference by a state or states in the external affairs of another state without its consent, or in its internal affairs with or without its consent. This is based on the grounds that a state should not interfere in the internal politics of another state, based upon the principles of state sovereignty and self-determination. A similar phrase is "strategic independence".[17] Historical examples of supporters of non-interventionism are US Presidents George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, who both favored nonintervention in European Wars while maintaining free trade. Other proponents include United States Senator Robert A. Taft and United States Congressman Ron Paul.

Democracy and geopolitics[edit]

State geopolitical interests can be also seen as anti-democratic in nature, as they lie very away from the interests of the general public.[18] Vietnam War is a very prominent example of this: in by 1970 only a third of Americans believed that the U.S. had not made a mistake by sending troops to fight in Vietnam,[19] however USA continued to defend its geopolitical interests[20][21] by military intervention in Vietnam for another 5 years, till 1975. Another example is the presence of US troops in Afghanistan, which in 2013 was supported by only 20% of US population, but US military presence still continues till 2014.

See also[edit]

Notes[edit]

  1. ^ Devetak et al (eds), An Introduction to International Relations, 2012, p. 492.
  2. ^ Evans, G & Newnham, J., (1998), "The Penguin Dictionary of International relations", Penguin Books, London, Uk. ISBN 0-14-051397-3
  3. ^ Sea Power
  4. ^ Christopher Lloyd GoGwilt, "The Geopolitical Image: Imperialism, Anarchism, and the Hypothesis of Culture in the Formation of Geopolitics", Modernism/modernity, Volume 5, Number 3, September 1998, pp. 49–70 et The Fiction of Geopolitics: Afterimages of Culture, from Wilkie Collins to Alfred Hitchcock. Stanford. Stanford University Press, 2000, pp. 35–36.
  5. ^ Foundations of Modern Europe, London, George Bell, 1904, 284 pages
  6. ^ Sloan, G.R. "Sir Halford Mackinder: the heartland theory then and now", in Gray C S and Sloan G.R., Geopolitics, geography and strategy. London: Frank Cass, pp. 15–38.
  7. ^ See map in Polelle, Raising Cartographic Consciousness, p. 57.
  8. ^ See map in Polelle, Raising Cartographic Consciousness, p. 118.
  9. ^ Dimitri Kitsikis, A Comparative History of Greece and Turkey in the 20th century. In Greek, Συγκριτική Ἱστορία Ἑλλάδος καί Τουρκίας στόν 20ό αἰῶνα, Athens, Hestia, 1978. Supplemented 2nd edition: Hestia, 1990. 3rd edition: Hestia, 1998, 357 pp.. In Turkish, Yırmı Asırda Karşılaştırmalı Türk-Yunan Tarihi, İstanbul, Türk Dünyası Araştırmaları Dergisi, II-8, 1980.
  10. ^ O Tuathail (2006) page 20
  11. ^ O'Tuathail, 1996
  12. ^ Mark Bassin, "Race Contra Space: The Conflict Between German 'Geopolitik' and National Socialism," Political Geography Quarterly 1987 6(2): 115-134,
  13. ^ Braudel, The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in the Age of Philip II La part du milieu (vol. 1) ISBN 2-253-06168-9
  14. ^ LIT
  15. ^ GCSP
  16. ^ The Northern Times
  17. ^ Galen, Ted (1997). Carpenter,The libertarian reader : classic and contemporary readings from Lao-tzu to Milton Friedman. New York: Free Press. pp. 336–344. ISBN 0684832003. 
  18. ^ Finn, Adreen. "The Problematic Nature of Geopolitics". http://commentandoutlook.blogspot.fr. Commentary and Outlook. 
  19. ^ Lunch, William L., Sperlich, Peter W. (1979). [0=American+National+Election+Study%2C+1966&collection=DATA&journal[0]=Western+Political+Quarterly&paging.startRow=1 "American public opinion and the war in Vietnam"]. Western Political Quarterly 32 (1): 21–44. doi:10.2307/447561. Retrieved 6 June 2014. 
  20. ^ Lind, Michael (2002). Vietnam, the Necessary War: A Reinterpretation of America's Most Disastrous Military Conflict (1st Touchstone ed. ed.). New York: Touchstone. ISBN 0684870274. 
  21. ^ Lind, Michael. "The Necessary War: A Reinterpretation of America's Most Disastrous Military Conflict". New York Times. Retrieved 6 June 2014. 

References[edit]

  • Amineh, Parvizi M.; Houweling, Henk. Central Eurasia in Global Politics. London: Brill Academic Publishing. Introduction; Chapter 11. 
  • Ankerl, Guy (2000). Global communication without universal civilization. INU societal research 1. Geneva: INU Press. ISBN 2-88155-004-5. 
  • Devetak, Richard; Burke, Anthony; George, Jim, eds. (2011). An Introduction to International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-107-60000-3. 
  • Diamond, Jared (1997). Guns, Germs, and Steel. 
  • Kovacevic, Filip (2014). Teoretičari klasične geopolitike: ciklus predavanja. Podgorica: Centar za gradjansko obrazovanje. ISBN 978-86-85591-43-3. 
  • O'Loughlin, John; Heske, Henning (1991). Kliot, N; Waterman, S, eds. From War to a Discipline for Peace. The Political Geography of Conflict and Peace (London: Belhaven Press). 
  • Spang, Christian W. (2006). Spang, C. W.; Wippich, R.H., eds. Karl Hausofer Re-examined: Geopolitics As a Factor within Japanese-German Rapprochement in the Inter-War Years?. Japanese-German Relations, 1895–1945: War, Diplomacy and Public Opinion (London). pp. 139–157. 
  • Spang, Christian W. (2013). Karl Haushofer und Japan. Die Rezeption seiner geopolitischen Theorien in der deutschen und japanischen Politik. Munich: Iudicium. ISBN 978-3-86205-040-6.

External links[edit]