Geopolitics Midterm PDF

PS 11 – GEOPOLITICS MIDTERM DISCUSSION CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION TO GEOPOLITICS Lesson 1 - Meaning and Concept of Geopolitics Lesson 2 - Approaches in Geopolitics Lesson 3 - Geopolitics, Dis...

PS 11 – GEOPOLITICS MIDTERM DISCUSSION CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION TO GEOPOLITICS Lesson 1 - Meaning and Concept of Geopolitics Lesson 2 - Approaches in Geopolitics Lesson 3 - Geopolitics, Discourse, Experts Lesson 4 - Intellectuals, Ideology, Institutions CHAPTER 2: IMPERIALIST GEOPOLITICS Lesson 1 - Stages of Geopolitics CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION TO GEOPOLITICS Lesson 1 – Meaning and Concept What is Geopolitics? Geopolitics can be defined as the struggle over the control of geographical entities with an international and global dimension, and the use of such geographical entities for political advantage. It may be focused on particular forms of geopolitical conflicts and particular geographies. According to the author of The Geopolitical Reader, Gerard Tuathali, Geopolitics is the study of the relationship between geography and politics, particularly how geographic space is used to frame global political conflicts and strategies. He emphasizes that geopolitics is not just about physical space but also about how political power constructs and manipulates our understanding of space. The study about a state’s power to control territory, and shape international policy, and other states’ foreign policy. The power to control territory: The capacity or capability of a state to control or influence the behavior or conduct of another state. The power to control territory: The capacity or capability of a state to secure or guarantee its territorial integrity and control over its external and internal sovereignty. So it insinuates or suggests that the state has the power to acquire territories and it also insinuates that the state or states have the possibility of losing its control over its territory. Again the power to control territory: 1. The capacity or ability of a state to expand its territory over legitimate or illegitimate means. 2. Or lose the capability to secure its hold or control over its territory The ability to shape international and/or foreign policy: This depends on the relative economic and military strength of a state, and ultimately its behavior and/or conduct as a state, as well as its ability/inability to maintain friendly ties with other states. Some of the major factors of geopolitics: location of the regions, state topography (natural and artificial physical features of an area) Distance Immigration States sizes and shape Demography (statistical study of human population) States’ foreign policies and actions Two important overarching ideas in studying Geopolitics: 1. CONTESTATION - places, regions, and territories are always contested. The very nature of their socially constructed existence is based upon political frameworks that determine who belongs (or is included) and who does not belong (or is excluded) from a particular place. 2. CONTEXT - simply put, context matters. Political events occur in a particular location with specific socio-cultural, economic, linguistic, ecological, physical, geographic, and historical settings. These factors at least partially define what happens and what possibilities for peace and resolution are available within a geopolitical context. INTRODUCTION: Thinking Critically about Geopolitics (pp. 1-11 of The Geopolitical Reader) Historical Foundations of Geopolitics: The roots of geopolitics to 19th and early 20th-century thinkers like Friedrich Ratzel, Alfred Mahan, and Halford Mackinder. These early geopolitical theories emphasized the significance of geography in determining global power dynamics, with concepts like "Heartland Theory" (Mackinder) shaping military and strategic thought. Major early figures: Friedrich Ratzel, Alfred Mahan, Halford Mackinder. Geopolitics as a Practice of Power: Geopolitics is presented as both a method of analysis and an instrument of state power. Tuthail (author) examines how geopolitics is used by states to justify foreign policies, military strategies, and territorial claims. The Role of Geography in Global Power: Tuthail (author) explores how geographical knowledge has been historically manipulated to serve political ends. Geopolitics often involves the manipulation of geographical knowledge to support political objectives. The relationship between space, power, and representation is a central theme, questioning how maps, borders, and territories are socially constructed and politically charged. Mapping, borders, and territorial claims are political tools. The Power of Maps and Borders Ways on maps and territorial claims been used as tools for political power: Maps are powerful political tools that shape perceptions of territories and power. They are often used by states to legitimize territorial claims, reinforce national borders, and control resources. For example, colonial powers used maps to divide and conquer territories in Africa and Asia, drawing arbitrary borders that ignored local ethnic and cultural realities. In contemporary times, maps are still used to assert territorial claims, as seen in disputes over the South China Sea or the ongoing Israel-Palestine conflict, where maps reflect and reinforce political agendas. Geopolitical representations shape our understanding of regions like the Middle East or the Arctic: Geopolitical representations, often shaped by maps, media, and political discourse, frame regions like the Middle East as conflict zones or areas of strategic interest. The Middle East, for instance, is frequently portrayed through a lens of instability, terrorism, and resource competition, ignoring the complexity of local cultures and histories. Similarly, the Arctic is increasingly represented as a geopolitical frontier, where states compete for access to natural resources and new shipping routes, influenced by the impacts of climate change. These representations shape public opinion and policy decisions, often reinforcing stereotypes and simplifying the realities of these regions. The Importance of Context and Narrative and Binary Oppositions The author underscores that geopolitics is not merely about physical geography but also about narratives, ideologies, and the ways in which regions and nations are framed in global discourse. He argues that geopolitical strategies often rely on simplified, binary oppositions (e.g., East vs. West, North vs. South), which obscure the more nuanced realities of global politics. Geopolitics as a Form of Power and Knowledge Geopolitics as a form of power or knowledge refers to how countries, governments, or powerful groups use geography—like the location of land, resources, and borders—to control or influence other places and people. It’s about who has power and how they use it, both within their own country and in their relationships with other countries. Geopolitics as power means countries use their position or resources (like oil, military bases, or strategic locations) to gain influence. For example, a country with lots of oil might use it to get better trade deals or political alliances. A country with a strong military might exert control over weaker nations. Geopolitics as knowledge is about understanding the world in ways that benefit those in power. This includes studying maps, borders, and global issues like trade routes, but also controlling information about these things. For example, governments might frame conflicts or global challenges in a way that justifies their actions (like military interventions), which helps them maintain or increase their power. Geopolitics involves both using a country’s geographic advantages and shaping how people understand the world to influence others and maintain control. Geopolitics from above and Geopolitics from below Geopolitics from below represents the collective efforts of intellectuals and social movements that seek to create a more just, equitable, and participatory global order, in contrast to the top-down, elite-driven strategies that characterize geopolitics from above. These efforts often involve critiquing existing systems, proposing alternatives, and building solidarity across national and global movements. In the context of geopolitics from above vs. geopolitics from below, critical intellectuals and social movements engage in resistance by challenging dominant power structures and advocating for alternative forms of governance and global interaction. Resistances of geopolitics from below against geopolitics from above: 1. Challenging Imperialism and Colonialism Geopolitics from above is often associated with state-driven imperialism, colonialism, and neo-colonial practices where powerful nations control or influence weaker ones.  Critical intellectuals such as postcolonial scholars critique these power dynamics by exposing the ways imperialism reshapes global relations and identities. Social movements like anti-colonial, decolonization, or indigenous movements (e.g., struggles for independence, land rights movements) resist by reclaiming local autonomy, culture, and political agency. 2. Advocating for Global Justice and Equity Geopolitics from above prioritizes the interests of powerful states and corporations, often exacerbating global inequality. Critical intellectuals promote critiques of capitalist and neoliberal systems that perpetuate inequality on a global scale. They advocate for fairer economic systems and global cooperation that benefits marginalized populations. Social movements (e.g., World Social Forum, Occupy Movement) demand more equitable distribution of resources, environmental justice, and fair labor practices, opposing the policies of institutions like the IMF, World Bank, or WTO that serve elite interests. 3. Promoting Human Rights and Dignity Geopolitics from above often undermines human rights in favor of strategic interests, such as military interventions or economic sanctions that harm civilian populations. Critical intellectuals (e.g., Judith Butler, Arundhati Roy) critique the militarization of international relations and the human cost of geopolitical decisions made by elites. They emphasize the need for a human-centered approach to global politics. Social movements (e.g., civil rights movements, anti-war protests) fight for peace, human rights, and protection for refugees and displaced peoples who are often victims of global geopolitical struggles. Lesson 2: Approaches in Geopolitics 1. CLASSICAL/TRADITIONAL GEOPOLITICS Classical geopolitics refers to the early theories and ideas about the relationship between geographic space and political power. It includes key thinkers such as Halford Mackinder, Alfred Mahan, and Friedrich Ratzel, who laid the groundwork for how geography was seen as a determining factor in global power dynamics. Interprets the roles played by geography, natural resources, and transportation in formulating and implementing national and international political, economic, diplomatic, and military strategies. It focuses on the locations, positions, and resources that influence a state’s foreign actions and policies. It provides a spatial framework for examining international relations from a geographical perspective. The foundations for classical geopolitics were established in the era of European exploration and the related desire and need to see the world as an interconnected whole, made up of parts that were given labels (such as “barbaric” or “empty”) in relation to the West, which was assumed to be “civilized” and “developed.” It viewed the arena of politics as one of competition for supremacy between states. Hence, it believed that the world could be explained and understood, and as a result controlled. Such understanding was the foundation for the politics of empire and colonialism; it labelled parts of the world as “barbaric” or “savage” and therefore in need of colonial control to “develop” or “civilize” their populations. Such cultural politics went hand-in-hand with a mapping of the world that cataloged the world in terms of exploitable resources: Gold, timber, ivory, arable land, coffee, rubber, and, not to be forgotten, cheap indigenous labor – or people. At the end of the nineteenth century, colonial competition came to a head. The supremacy of the British Empire was challenged, and other countries (notably Germany, Japan, and the United States) sought to expand their colonial presence across the globe. It was in this period that the “classical” theories of people such as Sir Halford Mackinder, Alfred Thayer Mahan, and General Karl Haushofer were developed. Classical geopolitics is a way of thinking that claims to take an objective and global perspective, but in reality, has been the endeavor of elite white males in predominantly, but not exclusively, Western countries with an eye to promoting a particular political agenda. Classical geopolitics has put the ideas of geographers in the service of the state, usually willingly (See Table 1.1). 2. CRITICAL GEOPOLITICS It seeks to expose what it claims are deterministic, exceptionality, geographic, ideological, and other flaws it claims exist in traditional politics.  It emphasizes the normative aspects of international relations and aims to deconstruct the motivations of elites. It questions the role of geopolitics in perpetuating exploitation and seeks to challenge traditional geopolitical theories. It also includes the use of discourse with the meaning and reasons of choice of words, statements in policies, strategies, and statements. In the 1990s, critical geopolitics grew out of the body of thought known as post-modernism and a specific reaction by geographers to reclaim geopolitics from the state. In World War II, geopolitics became tainted by a constructed association with the Nazi party. Geopolitics was largely practiced by government strategists rather than academics. Critical geopolitics used the tools of post-modernism to reclaim the study of geopolitics. Post-modernism is motivated by the desire to challenge statements of authority, especially those based on science and government policy. Critical geopolitics critically engages the choice of words and the focus of policy statements, maps, essays, movies, or pretty much any media to identify what is known as the underlying discourse. Discourse is the fusion of power and authority into the content of language. Critical geopolitics used the tools of discourse analysis to re-engage the work of past classical geopoliticians and expose their biases and political agendas. In this way, it allowed for a new generation of scholars to call themselves geopoliticians – albeit critical ones who defined themselves in opposition to the classical school. Critical geopoliticians engaged current political thinkers to highlight the role of language in creating taken-for-granted assumptions about terrorism, Islam, the Middle East, etc., and expose unquestioned narratives about parts of the world, and the people that populate them, that justify military action and other foreign policy agendas. Classical Geopolitics (Traditional View) Meaning: Classical geopolitics looks at how geography (land, resources, location) shapes a country's power and strategy. It focuses on things like borders, access to oceans, or control over certain regions, and how countries can use these geographical features to gain power or influence. Example: Think of the idea that controlling certain strategic places (like ports or key land routes) makes a country more powerful. For example, the British Empire controlled key shipping routes during its height, which helped it become a global superpower. Main Idea: It’s a practical and strategic approach to how countries use geography to strengthen their position in the world. Critical Geopolitics (Modern, Analytical View) Meaning: Critical geopolitics questions the traditional ideas of classical geopolitics. Instead of just looking at geography as something "natural" that gives power, it focuses on how political leaders and media shape our ideas of the world. It explores how maps, borders, and political stories are created by those in power to maintain control and influence how we think about global issues. Example: When countries describe another nation as a “threat” or when media portrays certain regions as “dangerous,” critical geopolitics examines who is shaping that story and why. It asks: How do these stories justify actions like war, sanctions, or alliances? Main Idea: It’s more about understanding how power and ideas are constructed and how political leaders, media, and academics influence what we believe about global politics. Classical Geopolitics is like a strategy game where countries use land, resources, and location to become stronger, while Critical Geopolitics asks why the game is played that way, who makes the rules, and how our understanding of the game itself can be shaped by those in power. Lesson 3: Geopolitics, Discourse, Experts (pp. 3-7, The Geopolitical Reader) Geopolitics as a Form of Discourse: Discourse refers to the ways in which geopolitical knowledge, concepts, and representations are constructed, communicated, and used to shape political understanding and actions.The idea of discourse emphasizes that geopolitics is not just a neutral or objective study of geography's relationship to power, but rather a set of narratives, representations, and frameworks that shape how people and states understand the world. A discourse is a framework of meaning that influences how political events and spatial relationships (such as the borders of nations, territories, or regions) are interpreted. Geopolitical discourses help to (1) Define national interests (what is considered important for a state's survival and power); (2) Construct enemies or allies (who is viewed as a threat or partner); and (3) Justify political actions (military interventions, alliances, or territorial claims). Example: During the Cold War, a dominant geopolitical discourse was the framing of the world as a battle between capitalism (the "West") and communism (the "East"). This discourse shaped how states acted, forming alliances like NATO or the Warsaw Pact and justifying various foreign policies, such as containment or military intervention. Geopolitical discourse highlights that geopolitics is not simply about objective facts, like the location of countries or natural resources, but about how these facts are interpreted and given meaning within political frameworks. Geopolitical discourses are socially constructed and historically specific, meaning they change over time depending on who holds power, what ideologies are prevalent, and how global politics evolve. Geopolitics is not just a scientific analysis of geographical factors but a discourse shaped by cultural, political, and ideological contexts. It involves a system of representation, where geopolitical "truths" are constructed through language, media, and expert opinions.  Q: Why does the author criticize the idea of neutrality in geopolitical discourse? A: The author criticizes the idea of neutrality because geopolitical discourses often serve the interests of powerful states or elites. By presenting their perspectives as objective or scientific, these discourses obscure the power relations and political agendas embedded within them. Critical geopolitics seeks to expose and challenge these hidden power dynamics. Q: How does the idea of geopolitics as discourse differ from the traditional understanding of geopolitics as a neutral analysis of geography? A: Traditional geopolitics is often understood as a neutral, objective analysis of how geographical features (like terrain, location, and resources) influence global politics and power. It assumes that geopolitical outcomes are determined by geography itself. However, the idea of geopolitics as discourse challenges this view by arguing that geopolitics is not just a reflection of geography but a socially constructed narrative shaped by language, ideology, and power. This approach suggests that geopolitical knowledge is created through discourse, which means it reflects the interests, assumptions, and biases of those who construct it, rather than being a purely neutral or scientific assessment. Q: What role does language play in constructing geopolitical realities? A: Language plays a central role in constructing geopolitical realities because it is through discourse—language, terms, and narratives—that certain places, regions, or people are framed in particular ways. For example, labeling a country as part of the "axis of evil" or referring to a region as the "Third World" imposes certain meanings that shape how that country or region is perceived and acted upon. These linguistic constructs can influence foreign policy decisions, justify interventions, and shape public opinion. Geopolitical language often simplifies complex realities, creating binary oppositions (e.g., "good" vs. "evil") and reinforcing existing power dynamics. Geopolitical Experts as Producers of Knowledge: Experts, including academics, policymakers, and media commentators, play a key role in producing and legitimizing geopolitical discourses. These experts often reinforce state narratives, shaping how geographical spaces are viewed, for instance, as threats or opportunities. Q: What is the role of geopolitical experts in producing and legitimizing geopolitical discourse? A: Geopolitical experts, such as academics, policymakers, and media figures, are key players in constructing and legitimizing geopolitical discourses. They produce analyses and narratives that can reinforce state ideologies and shape public and political understanding of global issues. However, these experts are not neutral; their views are often influenced by the interests of the states or institutions they represent. Q: How do experts contribute to the construction of geopolitical narratives? A: Geopolitical experts, such as scholars, analysts, and policymakers, play a crucial role in constructing and legitimizing geopolitical narratives. Their analyses, reports, and opinions help frame global issues, identify threats, and define national interests. By producing knowledge and offering interpretations of geopolitical events, they influence both public perception and policy decisions. Experts often shape how countries, regions, and global challenges are understood, turning their interpretations into the dominant narrative used by governments and media. However, their expertise can also be influenced by political agendas, affiliations with think tanks, or state interests, which can skew the objectivity of their narratives. Q: Should geopolitical experts be seen as objective commentators, or are they influenced by political agendas and biases? A: While experts are often presented as objective commentators, the author argues that they are rarely free from political agendas or biases. Geopolitical experts may be influenced by the institutions they work for, including governments, think tanks, or media organizations, all of which can shape the way they frame global issues. Furthermore, their personal beliefs, cultural background, and the dominant ideologies of their time can also impact their analysis. This means that experts’ interpretations of geopolitical events may not be entirely neutral but can reflect broader political or ideological interests, making it important to critically evaluate their claims. Power and Influence of Geopolitical Narratives: Geopolitical discourses wield significant power in shaping global power dynamics. They produce simplified and often binary representations of the world (e.g., East vs. West, developed vs. developing nations), which can marginalize alternative perspectives or voices. Q: How do simplified binary oppositions in geopolitical discourse (e.g., East vs. West) affect our understanding of global politics? A: Simplified binary oppositions in geopolitical discourse create a distorted understanding of global politics by reducing complex realities into black-and-white terms. This can lead to stereotypes, misperceptions, and justifications for aggressive policies. For example, the "East vs. West" narrative during the Cold War created a rigid division between communist and capitalist blocs, ignoring the diversity of political and economic systems within these regions. Q: In what ways do geopolitical discourses reinforce power hierarchies between nations or regions? A: Geopolitical discourses often reinforce existing power hierarchies by framing certain nations or regions as dominant, civilized, or modern, while portraying others as weak, backward, or dangerous. These representations support the political, military, and economic dominance of powerful states, often justifying interventions, control over resources, or policies of exclusion. For example, during the colonial era, European powers justified their dominance over colonized regions through discourses that depicted them as “civilizing” missions. Today, similar discourses can be seen in the way certain regions (e.g., the Global South) are represented as unstable or in need of Western intervention, thus reinforcing unequal power dynamics between the Global North and South. Q: Can you think of current global issues where geopolitical discourses have shaped public opinion or policy? A: One current example is the geopolitical discourse surrounding the "War on Terror." After 9/11, the U.S. government and media framed certain regions, particularly the Middle East, as breeding grounds for terrorism, which shaped public opinion and justified military interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq. This discourse portrayed the West as defenders of democracy and security, while the Middle East was framed as a region of instability and threat. Similarly, discussions about immigration often use geopolitical discourse to frame migrants from certain regions (e.g., Latin America, Africa) as a threat to national security, shaping policies that enforce stricter border control or exclusion. Critique of Traditional Geopolitics: Traditional geopolitics criticism is the idea of presenting itself as neutral or objective when it often serves the interests of specific states or elites. Critical geopolitics aims to deconstruct these discourses and expose the power relations embedded within them. Q: What is the significance of critical geopolitics, and how does it challenge traditional geopolitical thinking? A: Critical geopolitics challenges traditional geopolitical thinking by arguing that geopolitical knowledge is not neutral but socially constructed. It aims to deconstruct the power relations embedded in geopolitical discourses and reveal how these narratives serve the interests of powerful actors. By questioning the assumptions of geopolitical experts and the language used to frame global issues, critical geopolitics seeks to offer a more nuanced and equitable understanding of international relations. Q: Why does Tuathail argue that geopolitics is never truly neutral or objective A: Tuathail argues that geopolitics is never truly neutral or objective because it is shaped by the ideologies, political interests, and power structures of those who produce geopolitical knowledge. Geopolitical analyses are influenced by the social, cultural, and historical contexts in which they are created. As such, they often reflect the interests of dominant powers (e.g., states, political elites, corporations) rather than being purely factual assessments of global events. By framing issues in certain ways, geopolitical discourse can legitimize certain actions, such as territorial expansion, military intervention, or economic control, making it inherently political and subjective. Lesson 4: Intellectuals, Ideology, Institutions The Role of Intellectuals in Geopolitical Discourse: Intellectuals, including scholars, policymakers, and media commentators, play a crucial role in shaping and legitimizing geopolitical ideas. They produce geopolitical narratives that often reflect the interests of the state or ruling elites, shaping how the public and policymakers understand international relations. Q: What role do intellectuals play in shaping geopolitical discourse? A: Intellectuals, including scholars, policymakers, and commentators, play a key role in shaping and legitimizing geopolitical ideas. They produce narratives that often reflect the interests of the state or ruling elites, influencing how the public and policymakers understand global relations and threats. Q: How do intellectuals contribute to the formation of geopolitical discourse, and what responsibility do they have in shaping public opinion and policy? A: Intellectuals, such as scholars, analysts, and media commentators, are key in shaping and spreading geopolitical ideas. By producing knowledge and analysis, they influence how governments, the public, and other intellectuals perceive global issues. Their work often frames international relations, defining what is seen as a threat or an opportunity. Intellectuals also bear responsibility for how they present their ideas because their analysis can lead to policies that impact entire nations, such as military interventions or economic sanctions. By constructing and legitimizing geopolitical discourse, intellectuals can either reinforce state power or critically challenge it. Q: In what ways might intellectuals’ work be influenced by the state or other powerful institutions? A: Intellectuals can be influenced by funding sources, political pressures, or affiliations with powerful institutions such as government agencies or think tanks. When intellectuals work closely with states or receive financial backing from political entities, their analyses might align with the interests of those in power, consciously or unconsciously. This creates a potential bias in the production of geopolitical knowledge, where intellectuals may support hegemonic ideologies, justify foreign interventions, or promote national security narratives that reflect the interests of the state or ruling elite. Institutions as Producers of Geopolitical Knowledge: Institutions such as think tanks, universities, government agencies, and international organizations produce and disseminate geopolitical knowledge. These institutions have a significant influence on public policy and global discourse, often acting as intermediaries between intellectuals and state power. Q: How do institutions contribute to the production and dissemination of geopolitical knowledge? A: Institutions such as think tanks, universities, government agencies, and international organizations serve as platforms for producing and disseminating geopolitical knowledge. They influence public policy, shape global discourse, and act as intermediaries between intellectuals and state power, often promoting state-centered geopolitical narratives. A: These institutions serve as major centers for the production and dissemination of geopolitical knowledge. Think tanks, for example, often provide policy advice to governments, shaping foreign policy and national security strategies. Universities produce academic research that influences the development of geopolitical theories, while international organizations help define global norms, rules, and the language through which geopolitical issues are addressed (e.g., in discussions about humanitarian interventions, climate change, or trade). Institutions are intermediaries between intellectuals and policy, and their legitimacy gives geopolitical discourse an air of authority, thus shaping how global issues are perceived and acted upon. The Connection between Ideology and Geopolitical Thought: Geopolitical knowledge is not ideologically neutral; it is shaped by dominant ideologies that reflect the political and economic interests of powerful actors. Ideologies can determine how geopolitical threats are identified, how regions are categorized, and how policies are justified.  Q: How does ideology influence geopolitical thought and strategies? A: Ideology plays a significant role in shaping geopolitical thought by influencing how intellectuals and institutions frame global issues. Geopolitical strategies are often built upon ideological assumptions, which can justify foreign policies, territorial claims, and interventions. For example, during the Cold War, ideological differences between capitalism and communism shaped global alliances and conflicts. Q: How do dominant ideologies shape geopolitical discourse and decision-making? A: Dominant ideologies, such as capitalism, nationalism, or liberal democracy, heavily influence how geopolitical issues are framed and how decisions are made. For instance, during the Cold War, the ideological struggle between capitalism and communism defined global alliances and conflicts. Today, neoliberal ideology might shape the way global economic policies are framed, with regions categorized as "developed" or "developing" based on their alignment with capitalist market structures. These ideologies create narratives that justify foreign interventions, territorial claims, or alliances, framing issues in ways that reinforce the existing power structures. The Influence of Ideology on Geopolitical Strategy: Ideological frameworks influence the construction of geopolitical strategies, often reinforcing state power and justifying foreign interventions, territorial claims, or alliances. For example, during the Cold War, the ideological conflict between capitalism and communism shaped global geopolitical strategies and alliances. Q: How does ideology influence geopolitical thought and strategies? A: Ideology plays a significant role in shaping geopolitical thought by influencing how intellectuals and institutions frame global issues. Geopolitical strategies are often built upon ideological assumptions, which can justify foreign policies, territorial claims, and interventions. For example, during the Cold War, ideological differences between capitalism and communism shaped global alliances and conflicts. Critique of Geopolitical Institutions and Intellectuals: It criticizes the role of institutions and intellectuals in perpetuating state-centric and often hegemonic geopolitical ideas. It calls for critical engagement with these sources of geopolitical knowledge, urging readers to question the assumptions and biases embedded in their narratives. Q: What were the criticisms in the role of intellectuals and institutions in geopolitics? A: It criticizes intellectuals and institutions for often perpetuating state-centric and hegemonic geopolitical ideas. He argues that their work is frequently influenced by dominant ideologies that serve the interests of powerful actors, and he calls for a more critical approach to geopolitical knowledge that questions these biases. Q: What is the relationship between ideology and geopolitical institutions? A: It suggests that geopolitical institutions are not ideologically neutral; they are shaped by and help reinforce dominant ideologies. These institutions often promote narratives that align with the interests of powerful states or elites, and they play a crucial role in legitimizing state-centered geopolitical strategies. CHAPTER 2: IMPERIALIST GEOPOLITICS Lesson 1: Historical Stages of Geopolitics Stage 1 – The Race for Imperial Hegemony Stage 2 – German Geopolitik Stage 3 – American Geopolitics Stages 1 2 3 define geopolitics as a form of power/knowledge concerned with promoting state expansionism and securing empires. All the leading geopoliticians were conservative white male imperialists who sought to explain and justify imperial expansionism by their own particular national state and “race”. The writings of these male geopoliticians (Ratzel, Mackinder, Mahan, Spykman, etc) were full of the hubris of empire and national exceptionalism: their country represented the zenith of civilization; their way of life was superior to that of others; their ideals were the ideals of all mankind (on their perspective). These geopoliticians considered themselves to be the masters of the globe. They thought in terms of continents and strategized in worldwide terms, labeling huge swaths of the globe with names, like “heartland” and “rimlands (Spykman, 1942). Also present were multiple supremacist arguments: 1. The supposed “natural” supremacy of men over women 2. The white race over other races / racism 3. European civilization over non-European civilization One example of this entwined sexism, racism and national chauvinism was the ideology of the Nazi party in Germany which celebrated idealized visions of “Aryan manhood” while persecuting the vilifying what it constructed as “Jewish Bolshevism. Stage 4 – Cold War Geopolitics The outbreak of a Cold War between US and Soviet Union provided a new context for the production of geopolitical power/knowledge. We can say the imperialist geopolitics (Stages 1-3) tended to emphasize the conditioning or determining influence of physical geography on foreign policy and global strategy, the Cold Ward geopolitics that came to be produced around the US-Soviet antagonism entwined geography so closely with ideology: As Mackinder described Russian landmass as “Heartland”, a geographical and territorial region, to George Kennan, the architect of the US post-war policy of “containment” of the Soviet Union, Russia was never simply a territory but a constantly expanding threat during that time. The very geographical terminology used to describe the world map was also a description of ideological identity and difference. The West was more than a geographical region; it was an imaginary community of democratic states that supposedly represented the very highest standards of civilization and development. “Eastern” powers like Japan and South Korea were part of this imaginary and symbolic “West”. On the other hand, the Soviet union was represented as an “Eastern power”, the mirror image of the West. According to Ronald Reagan, it was the “evil empire”. The regions and peoples of Eastern Europe were known as the “Eastern bloc”. All states with Communist governments were said to belong to the “Second World” which was contrasted with the “First World” which was the West. In addition, Third World was for the poor and developing countries. The Thrid World was conceptualized as a zone of competition between the West and the East especially on its exploitative natural resources and cheap labor. Stage 5 – New World Order The new world geopolitics describes a world dominated no longer by territorial struggles between completing blocs, but “by emerging transnational problems like terrorism. And answering the questions of geoeconomics – globalization of economic activity and global flows of trade, investment, commodities. Environmental geopolitics – the new world order emphasizes the relationship of politics to the Earth is more important than ever as states and peoples struggle to deal with environmental degradation, resource depletion, transnational pollution and global warming. STAGE 1: THE RACE FOR IMPERIAL HEGEMONY 1. Friedrich Ratzel (Organic Theory of State) / German school of thought Studied the behavior of states State requires nourishment and is provided through acquisition of less powerful competitors territories and their cultural components One could determine the general well-being one the state by regarding its size as measured according to its geographic expansion or contraction over time. Social Darwinism, considered the state to be a living organism engaged in a struggle for survival with other states. Nazi foreign policy, Lebensraum. Germany should expand at the expense of “inferior” states (organisms) to secure more Lebensraum, or living space for itself. Ratzel wrote the importance of the relationship between territory or soil and the nation in the development of imperial strength and national power. He described states as living organisms: in order to grow it must expand. Because if it doesn’t expand, it will disintegrate That perspective is within his theory of organic theory. He also put the theory of Charles Darwin on how living organism tend to act in nature. But he applied it in higher category. A state is a living organism therefore it must expand It is justifying the concept of state expansionism Friedrich Ratzel, the German "father" of political geography and a natural scientist, was the first to treat space and location systematically, in his comparative studies of states. He provided successor geopoliticians with a scientific basis for state expansionist doctrines that reflected Germany's nineteenth-century experiences and its ambitions for the future. During the last half of the nineteenth century, Germany had emerged as the chief economic and military power on the European continent. Unified under Bismarck's leadership and victorious in its wars with Austria and France, it had enlarged its territory, expanded its heavy industries, and enacted social reform. With the aid of a new, powerful naval fleet, Germany posed a serious threat to Britain and France as it acquired an overseas empire in East and West Africa and the Western Pacific and sought commercial footholds in East Asia. Ratzel based his system on the principles of evolution and science. He viewed the state as an organism fixed in the soil whose spirit derived from mankind's ties to the land. His geographical "laws" focused on space (raum) and location (!age), the former dependent upon and contributing to the political character of groups living in the space, the latter pro­ viding space with its uniqueness. Frontiers were the "skins" or peripheral organs of states, reflecting growth and decline. When correlated with continental areas organized under a single government, states would generate vast political power. These "organic" theories of state growth fitted Germany's view of its future as a youthful, aggressive, capitalist "giant state." Mackinder (Heartland Theory) / British School of thought Created to justify the strategic value of colonialism and explain the dynamic processes and possibilities behind the new world map created by imperialism Theory highlighted the importance of geography to world political and economic stability and conflict Eurasia was the most likely base from which a successful campaign for world conquest could be launched Considered Eurasia‟s closed heartland the ‘geographical pivot area’, the location central to establishing world control. Maritime exploration was coming to a close, and land based transportation technology would reinstate land based powers as essential to political dominance.  Halford Mackinder, who established geography as a university discipline in Britain, foresaw the ending of the Victorian era. His concern was safeguarding the British Empire's political, commercial, and industrial primacy at a time when command of the seas no longer appeared to guarantee world supremacy. With the advent of the transcontinental railroad age (the Union Pacific, 1869; Berlin-Baghdad via Anatolia, 1896; and the Trans-Siberian, 1905), Mackinder viewed the rise of Eurasian continental states as the greatest threat to British world hegemony. For Mackinder, geographical realities lay in the advantages of centrality of place and efficient movement of ideas, goods, and people. In 1904, he theorized that the inner area of Eurasia, characterized by interior or polar drainage and impenetrable by sea power, was the "Pivot Area" of world politics. He warned that rule of the heart of the world's greatest landmass could become the basis for world domination, owing to the superiority of rail over ships in terms of time and reach. A Eurasian land power (be it Russia, Germany, or even China, and especially an alliance of the first two) that gained control of the Pivot Area would outflank the Maritime world. Eleven years later, the English geographer James Fairgrieve, who introduced the term "Heartland," opined that China was in an excellent position to dominate Eurasia. In Democratic Ideals and Realities (1919), Mackinder, now using the term "Heartland" and taking into account advances in land transportation, population increases, and industrialization, enlarged his map to include Eastern Europe from the Baltic through the Black Sea as Inner Eurasia's strategic annex. This became the basis for his dictum, "Who rules Eastern Europe commands the Heartland: Who rules the Heartland commands World-Island: Who rules World-Island commands the world." Mahan (Theory of Sea Power) / US school of thought 1. Wrote about the importance of the physical geography-territorial mass and physical features in relation to the sea 2. The Influence of Seapower Upon History (1890), development of seapower by expanding states; the road to national greatness was through naval expansionism. 3. Eurasian centered - , the northern land hemisphere, the far-flung parts of which were linked through the passageways offered by the Panama and Suez canals, was the key to world power; Eurasia was the most important component. 4. Mahan recognized Russia as the dominant Asian land power, whose location made it unassailable. However, he felt that Russia's landlocked position put it at a disadvantage, because, in his view, sea movement was superior to land movement. 5. Blue water strategy Admiral Alfred T. Mahan was a naval historian. His global perspective was also Eurasian-centered. For Mahan, the northern land hemisphere, the far-flung parts of which were linked through the passageways offered by the Panama and Suez canals, was the key to world power; within that hemisphere, Eurasia was the most important component. Mahan recognized Russia as the dominant Asian land power, whose location made it unassailable. However, he felt that Russia's landlocked position put it at a disadvantage, because, in his view, sea movement was superior to land movement. For Mahan, the critical zone of conflict lay between the thirtieth and fortieth parallels in Asia, where Russian land power and British sea power met. He argued that world dominance could be held by an Anglo-American alliance from key bases surrounding Eurasia. Indeed, he predicted that an alliance of the United States, Britain, Germany, and Japan would one day hold a common cause against Russia and China. Mahan developed his geopolitical views as America's frontier history was drawing to a close and the country had begun to look beyond its continental limits to a new role as a world power. He considered the United States to be an outpost of European power and civilization, regarding its Pacific shore and islands to be extensions of the Atlantic-European realm. The United States thus lay within the Western half of a twofold global framework, the Oriental (Asian) being the other half in many ways, Mahan's view of the world's setting anticipated Mackinder's. Their diametrically opposed strategic conclusions stemmed from different assessments of the comparative effectiveness of land versus sea movement. Kiellen Rudolph Kjellen (1864-1922), the political scientist who coined the term "geopolitics" in 1899, was influenced both by his Swedish background and by Germany's growth into a giant state. He viewed the impending breakdown of the Concert of Europe and the drift to­ ward war and chaos as the death knell for a small state like Sweden. Adopting Ratzel's organic state concept, he considered Germany's emergence as a great power inevitable and desirable. The needs of Sweden would be fulfilled within the framework of a new Mitteleuropean bloc from Scandinavia and the Baltic through Eastern Europe and the Balkans, dominated by an ascendant Germany. A Conservative member of the Swedish parliament, Kjellen viewed geopolitics as the "science of the state," whereby the state's natural environment provided the framework for a power unit's pursuit of "inexorable laws of progress." Geopolitics was initially conceived by Kjellen as one of five major disciplines for understanding the state, the others being termed econo- , demo-, socio-, and crato- (power) politics. As the mainstay of the five, geopolitics came to subsume the others. The dynamic organic approach led Kjellen to espouse the doctrine that political processes were spatially determined. Moreover, since giant states in Europe could only be created by war, he viewed geopolitics as primarily a science of war. STAGE 2: GERMAN GEOPOLITIK German geopolitik emerged in reaction to Germany's devastating defeat in World War I. Humbled by the Treaty of Versailles, Germany was stripped of its overseas empire and important parts of its national territory. Haushofer 1. Key figure of German geopolitik which influenced the ideological development of Adolf Hitler (Lebensraum) 2. Geopolitik principles were designed to fulfill German national and imperial aims. Doctrines such as blut und boden (blood and soil) and rasse raum (race and space) became ideological foundations for the murderous Nazi regime 3. He was a proponent of “Eurasianism advocating a policy of German-Russian hegemony and alliance to Anglo-American power structure’s potentially dominating influence in Europe. 4. Haushofer and German geopoliticians supported German dominance developed the theory of the “pan-region” – a continent- sized block encompassing an industrial major power and a resource periphery and posited four regions were likely to emerge as an intermediate stage before global German dominance. Pan-Europe (with Africa) dominated by Germany Pan-America- USA Pan-Russia – Soviet Union Pan-Asia - Japan 5. Supported the emergence of airplanes as key resource in dominion. This downplays the role of both naval and land power in favor of air superiority 6. German dominance with support of Japan as key player in Asia Karl Haushofer, the former military commander who became a political ge­ ographer, was not an original thinker. The geopolitik of the group of German geopoliticians whom he led (Otto Maull, Erich Obst, Ewald Banse, Richard Hennig, Colin Ross, Albrecht Haushofer) was based essentially upon the writings of Kjellen, Ratzel, and Mackinder. Others whose teachings he invoked included Mahan, Fairgrieve, and such geographical determinists as Ellen Churchill Semple, who was Ratzel's leading American disciple. Much of the organismic Hegelian philosophy of geopolitik came from Ratzel, directly or via Kjellen. Lebensraum (living space) and autarchy became slogans for doctrines whose consequences were conflict and total war. Three geographical settings permeated the literature of geopolitik: Ratzel's large states, Mackinder's World-Island, and panregions. The organic growth of Germany to its west and east was regarded as inevitable. To gain mastery over World-Island, it was necessary to dominate the USSR and destroy British sea power. The geopoliticians posited that German control over Pan-Europe (including Eastern Eu­ rope) would force the Soviet Union, regarded as an Asian power, to come to terms. STAGE 3: GEOPOLITICS IN THE UNITED STATES Spykman (Rimland Theory) 1. Key proponent of the Rimland. 2. He criticized Mackinder for overrating the Heartland as being of immense strategic importance due to its vast size, central geographical location and supremacy of land power rather than sea power. He assumed that the Heartland will not be a potential hub of Europe, because: a. Western Russia was then an agrarian society b. Bases of industrialization were found to the west of the Ural mountains. c. This area is ringed to the north, east, south, and south-west by some of the greater obstacles to transportation (ice and freezing temperature, lowering mountains etc.). d. There has never really been a simple land power–sea power opposition. 3. Spykman thought that the Rimland, the strip of coastal land that encircles Eurasia, is more important than the central Asian zone (the so-called Heartland) for the control of the Eurasian continent. Spykman's vision is at the base of the "containment politics" put into effect by the United States in its relation/position to the Soviet Union during the post-World War II period 4. Reputed the Heartland to use German dominance, instead using Anglo-American sea power and Soviet land power could prevent Germany (Eastern Europe) from seizing all the Eurasian shorelines and thereby gaining domination of World Island. Most American academic geographers vigorously repudiated German geopolitik, resulting in a general reluctance to pursue the study of geopolitics. His "Rimland" theory reflected Mahan's view of the world and was presented as an antidote to the concept of Heartland primacy. However, Spykman's terminology, his detailed global geographical setting, and the political conclusions that he derived from his views of the world, show that his basic inspiration came from Mackinder, whose strategic conclusions he attempted to refute. Essentially, Spykman sought to arouse the United States against the danger of world domination by Germany. He felt that only a dedicated alliance of Anglo-American sea power and Soviet land power could prevent Germany from seizing control of all the Eurasian shorelines and thereby gaining domination over World-Island. Spykman considered that the Eurasian coastal lands (including Maritime Europe, the Middle East, India, Southeast Asia, and China) were the keys to world control because of their populations, their rich resources, and their use of interior sea lanes.  In essence, Spykman had the same global view as Mackinder, but he rejected the landpower doctrine to say, "Who controls the Rimland rules Eurasia; who rules Eurasia controls the destinies of the world." To Spykman, the Rimland (Mackinder's "Marginal Cres­ cent") was the key to the struggle for the world. In the past, the fragmentation of the Western European portion of Rimland and the power of the United Kingdom and the United States (parts of what Spykman considered the Offshore Continents and Islands) had made unitary control of the Rimland impossible. (This Offshore region, which included the New World, Sub-Saharan Africa, and Australasia, was equivalent to Mackinder's "Outer Crescent.") Now, however, Spykrnan feared that a single power, such as Germany, might seize control of the European Rimland and then sweep onto the other portions through various combinations of conquests and alliances, using ship superiority and command of a network of naval and air bases around Eurasia. Certainly, there is still much to be said in favor of sea communication as far as the movement of goods is concerned. Also, aircraft carriers and submarines have given mobility in the use of aircraft and missiles to ocean basin powers that fixed land bases cannot. The in­ adequacy of Spykman's doctrine was and remains the fact that no Eurasian Rimland power is capable of organizing all of the Rimland because of the vulnerability of the Rimland to both the Heartland and the Offshore powers. A united Maritime Europe would have to have complete control of the Mediterranean, North Africa, the Middle East, Sub-Saharan Africa, and Australia before it could attempt to exert its strategic dominance upon the remainder of the South and East Asian portions of the Rimland. It could succeed only if the Heartland or the Offshore New World's American power did not intervene. He also held that a Rimland China that swept into control of Offshore or South Asia would be at a disadvantage in seeking to control the Middle East against Heartland, Western European, or African­based pressures.