Summary:
A persistent narrative at the present time is how globalization will make borders and nation states irrelevant. It was the theme of the much-hyped Thomas L Friedman's The World is Flat. In conjunction, the fall of Soviet Union led people to claim that liberal democracy as practiced in the west had triumphed over other political systems as claimed by Francis Fukuyama in his 'End of History'. While the 21st century has seen the benefits of globalization and migration across borders, it has also seen an accelerating trend towards instability across the world. Robert Kaplan in his book argues that returning to a realist based view of the world will provide us a better handle on analyzing problems across the world. As part of that approach, his book advocates geography as a determining factor in geopolitics and its impact on how nations view the world around them. He has recommendations for American policy makers on how to handle US power with the rise of China and other nations. I have always loved reading his books and this one is no different. A longer and deeper analysis of India's geography would have made it even better
Analysis:
With the collapse of Soviet Union in the early 90s, US became the sole superpower in the world capable of projecting its power across the globe. With its massive air power, it was able to stage a successful intervention in the Balkans in the 90s. US policy makers who supported the intervention in Balkans (liberal and conservative) were also in support of the Iraq war. Once the war in Iraq started going south, US public turned against the war. Kaplan sketches out a repetitive cycle where a war ends (Vietnam war) bringing with it a long period of peace. US tries to prolong this period by negotiating for more peace when another war breaks out. That is met with calls of Munich(Neville Chamberlain, 1938) as a result of which US policymakers dove headlong into intervention and end up with a broader conflagration that they bargained for. Upon the war's conclusion (successful or unsuccessful), US goes into retrenchment mode and isolates itself from the cares of the world. US has the luxury of this cycle because it is bounded by oceans on either side and any belligerent power has to commit significant amount of resources to attack US on its homeland. As the author points out, 'Vietnam is about limits, Munich is about overcoming them'. As American power declines in the future(both due to demography and self defeating choices), it will need to act as a balancing power in Eurasia (to make sure there are structures to bring peace to the rivalries in Eurasia) while acting as an unifying power in America (demography of Mexico and Central America will transform US in the coming years which might be one reason why Trump wants to build the wall on US border).
For everyone, geography is fixed in the environment where they live and especially for other countries (other than US), that fact is not so kind. Arab Spring impacted countries in 2 ways - ones that regained their stability and ones that did not. Tunisia and Egypt fall in the first category. Tunis (Capital of Tunisia), is located in what used to be the ancient kingdom of Carthage and Egypt is one of the World's oldest and greatest civilizations. On the other hand, Yemen, Syria and Libya have been racked by civil war and have become failed states partly because of their geography (borders drawn without regard to the underlying geography, courtesy Britain and France).
Germany's aggression leading to 2 world wars can be explained by its orientation of west to east - France on its West, Russia on its East. It is vulnerable to invasion from either side. Britain's development as the major power can be explained by its favorable position as an island apart from Europe. Germany focused on developing its land power to counter the threat of land based invasions whereas Britain focused on developing its naval power to protect itself.
India lives in a very dangerous geographic environment, South Asia. It is surrounded by countries whose geography have been mostly artificial and disconnected from history. Afghanistan and Pakistan split Hindu Kush mountains (land of the Pashtuns) between themselves and as a result, neither country is stable. Moreover, throughout history, when a power has been strong in this region, it has been in charge of Indus and western part of Ganges rivers. Currently, Pakistan is in charge of Indus river and India has the western part of Ganges river. United Indian subcontinent has been a mirage throughout its history (Hindu Nationalists' feverish wishes of Akhand Bharat notwithstanding) with few notable exceptions ( Maurya Empire). Most of the attempts to unify Indian subcontinent under a single standard has fallen at the Deccan plateau. In contrast, China has had unified control of its territory for most of its recorded history which is why it might be able to project power better than India ever can. The geography of China also lends itself to centralization of power that then radiates within its borders. In Indian subcontinent, power has been manifest through alliances partly due to geography (this applies as much to current day coalition politics). The fragmentation in Central India (BIMARU states with Jharkand and Chattisgarh added) could be due to its soil being rich enough to support high population density but not enough to support economic growth without access to oceans. In addition, Southern India has access to oceans which enabled commerce and made its interactions with Arab traders different from those in the North (invading Muslim armies). If ever there was a justification needed for painting Partition as the handiwork of an incompetent, hubristic and irresponsible power (Britain), the boundaries of India and Pakistan would be it.
Across the world, there has been an steep increase in population in mega cities(Cities with population above 10 million) but there has been an equally impressive increase in populations in cities with population less than 10 million as well. With the shrinking spaces in cities comes instability and loneliness courtesy of crowd psychology and technology.
Geopolitical scientists have developed theories explaining how different regions of the world see the world around them through the prism of their specific geography. Since all of them are from Western civilization, they look out to the world from Europe or the US as the vantage point.
William Hardy McNeill - According to McNeill, Cultures and Civilizations continually interacted and this interaction played out as world history. In earlier times, there were lot more empty spaces between different Cultures and Civilizations and as time has gone on, all these Cultures and Civilizations have filled up the empty spaces between them. As a result, the interactions have increased in frequency accompanied by an increase in uncertainty of how these interactions play out. The antiquity of Indian civilization is explained by McNeill as a product of being protected by mountains in the North while at the same time being invaded by barbarians through passes in those mountains.
Oswald Spengler - Spengler is the blood and soil theorist for whom Cultures and Civilizations are tied to the soil from where they originated. His theories look upon the interaction of Cultures and Civilizations as weakening the potency of the original civilization. Moving them away from their original place of birth makes them rootless or paraphrasing him, 'Cosmopolitanism is the essence of rootlessness'.
Halford Mackinder - Mackinder's works were in the early 20th century (1904) when Britain was an Imperial colossus and as such, he is partial to the British Imperialist worldview. His contention is that the fate of the world empires rests on Central Asia. During the Age of Discovery(Columbian Age), European powers expanded across the oceans facing 'negligible resistance'. Once there was no more space for expansion, they fought 2 world wars with each other. He designates Central Asia (including Russia) as the heartland, Eurasia and Africa as World Island and the lands of major religions as Monsoon lands - Far East (Buddhism - Pacific Ocean), India (Hinduism - Indian Ocean), Europe (Christianity - Atlantic Ocean), Middle East (Islam, Judaism, Christianity) with each region being influenced by religion and in turn, influencing them. His famous dictum was:
Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland:
Who rules the Heartland commands the World Island:
Who rules the World Island commands the World:
In his analyses, Mongol invasion of India, China, Turkey decimated those Cultures and Civilizations while Europe was spared that fate and subsequently mastered the world. It was Mackinder's theses that Hitler used (by the way of Karl Hushofer) in coming up with his idea of Lebensraum(Living Space) that became the driving force behind Nazi Germany's invasions. Mackinder's reputation was restored after Second World War by Robert Strausz Hupe by injecting individual and moral responsibility as the differentiating factor between Mackinder's original thesis and its adaptation by Haushofer and Nazis.
Marshall G.S. Hodgson - His work primarily concerns itself with how Islam grew as it did but given the breadth of Islam's presence across the world, it serves as an useful reminder of the influence of geography on religion. He also points out how Euro centrism has seriously distorted geographical analyses, the main exhibit being Mercator Projection which shows Europe with a far larger landmass than it actually is (a familiar issue for anyone who works with GIS).
Nicholas J Spykman - Spykman develops his theory keeping US at its center. He explains how America became a hegemonic power with the conclusion of Spanish American War of 1898 as it allowed it to control the Greater Caribbean Sea and with it, control of the Americas. Spykman looks at Americas not as 2 continents (the North and the South) as is currently understood from the maps but between people to the north of jungle around Amazon river and those to the south of it. In his view, Russia (then Soviet Union) is a land power forever looking to get access to the sea (This might explain why Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan - to destabilize Pakistan and advance to the Indian Ocean). George Kennan's Long Telegram that gave rise to the policy of Containment of Soviet Union during Cold War can be explained through Spykman's view of Soviet Union's intentions. Spykman also pointed out that an unified Europe (with a single foreign policy enforced through European armed forces) would be a competitor to US, not an ally.
Alfred Thayer Mahan - Mahan's thesis influenced countless American presidents in late 1800s and early 1900s to invest heavily in naval power as America was becoming a hegemonic power. Indian and Chinese Navy officials currently look to Mahan as their respective countries grow stronger. According to Mahan, travel by water is easier and cheaper than by land and hence determines the outcome of global political struggles, something that Britain and then US used to become major powers.
Paul Bracken - According to Bracken, there is a crisis of room in Asia with all the countries progressing economically and investing in military hardware and software while being confronted by shrinking empty spaces between them. That in addition to disruptive technologies (computers, viruses, weapons of mass destruction) means there is high uncertainty about how these interactions will play out.
Other Books of interest:
A Hundred Horizons: The Indian Ocean in the Age of Global Empire by Sugata Bose
Another Bloody Century: Future Warfare by Colin S Gray
Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes
The Peloponnesian War by Thucydides
Fire in the East: The Rise of Asian Military Power and the Second Nuclear Age by Paul Bracken
A persistent narrative at the present time is how globalization will make borders and nation states irrelevant. It was the theme of the much-hyped Thomas L Friedman's The World is Flat. In conjunction, the fall of Soviet Union led people to claim that liberal democracy as practiced in the west had triumphed over other political systems as claimed by Francis Fukuyama in his 'End of History'. While the 21st century has seen the benefits of globalization and migration across borders, it has also seen an accelerating trend towards instability across the world. Robert Kaplan in his book argues that returning to a realist based view of the world will provide us a better handle on analyzing problems across the world. As part of that approach, his book advocates geography as a determining factor in geopolitics and its impact on how nations view the world around them. He has recommendations for American policy makers on how to handle US power with the rise of China and other nations. I have always loved reading his books and this one is no different. A longer and deeper analysis of India's geography would have made it even better
Analysis:
With the collapse of Soviet Union in the early 90s, US became the sole superpower in the world capable of projecting its power across the globe. With its massive air power, it was able to stage a successful intervention in the Balkans in the 90s. US policy makers who supported the intervention in Balkans (liberal and conservative) were also in support of the Iraq war. Once the war in Iraq started going south, US public turned against the war. Kaplan sketches out a repetitive cycle where a war ends (Vietnam war) bringing with it a long period of peace. US tries to prolong this period by negotiating for more peace when another war breaks out. That is met with calls of Munich(Neville Chamberlain, 1938) as a result of which US policymakers dove headlong into intervention and end up with a broader conflagration that they bargained for. Upon the war's conclusion (successful or unsuccessful), US goes into retrenchment mode and isolates itself from the cares of the world. US has the luxury of this cycle because it is bounded by oceans on either side and any belligerent power has to commit significant amount of resources to attack US on its homeland. As the author points out, 'Vietnam is about limits, Munich is about overcoming them'. As American power declines in the future(both due to demography and self defeating choices), it will need to act as a balancing power in Eurasia (to make sure there are structures to bring peace to the rivalries in Eurasia) while acting as an unifying power in America (demography of Mexico and Central America will transform US in the coming years which might be one reason why Trump wants to build the wall on US border).
For everyone, geography is fixed in the environment where they live and especially for other countries (other than US), that fact is not so kind. Arab Spring impacted countries in 2 ways - ones that regained their stability and ones that did not. Tunisia and Egypt fall in the first category. Tunis (Capital of Tunisia), is located in what used to be the ancient kingdom of Carthage and Egypt is one of the World's oldest and greatest civilizations. On the other hand, Yemen, Syria and Libya have been racked by civil war and have become failed states partly because of their geography (borders drawn without regard to the underlying geography, courtesy Britain and France).
Germany's aggression leading to 2 world wars can be explained by its orientation of west to east - France on its West, Russia on its East. It is vulnerable to invasion from either side. Britain's development as the major power can be explained by its favorable position as an island apart from Europe. Germany focused on developing its land power to counter the threat of land based invasions whereas Britain focused on developing its naval power to protect itself.
India lives in a very dangerous geographic environment, South Asia. It is surrounded by countries whose geography have been mostly artificial and disconnected from history. Afghanistan and Pakistan split Hindu Kush mountains (land of the Pashtuns) between themselves and as a result, neither country is stable. Moreover, throughout history, when a power has been strong in this region, it has been in charge of Indus and western part of Ganges rivers. Currently, Pakistan is in charge of Indus river and India has the western part of Ganges river. United Indian subcontinent has been a mirage throughout its history (Hindu Nationalists' feverish wishes of Akhand Bharat notwithstanding) with few notable exceptions ( Maurya Empire). Most of the attempts to unify Indian subcontinent under a single standard has fallen at the Deccan plateau. In contrast, China has had unified control of its territory for most of its recorded history which is why it might be able to project power better than India ever can. The geography of China also lends itself to centralization of power that then radiates within its borders. In Indian subcontinent, power has been manifest through alliances partly due to geography (this applies as much to current day coalition politics). The fragmentation in Central India (BIMARU states with Jharkand and Chattisgarh added) could be due to its soil being rich enough to support high population density but not enough to support economic growth without access to oceans. In addition, Southern India has access to oceans which enabled commerce and made its interactions with Arab traders different from those in the North (invading Muslim armies). If ever there was a justification needed for painting Partition as the handiwork of an incompetent, hubristic and irresponsible power (Britain), the boundaries of India and Pakistan would be it.
Across the world, there has been an steep increase in population in mega cities(Cities with population above 10 million) but there has been an equally impressive increase in populations in cities with population less than 10 million as well. With the shrinking spaces in cities comes instability and loneliness courtesy of crowd psychology and technology.
Geopolitical scientists have developed theories explaining how different regions of the world see the world around them through the prism of their specific geography. Since all of them are from Western civilization, they look out to the world from Europe or the US as the vantage point.
William Hardy McNeill - According to McNeill, Cultures and Civilizations continually interacted and this interaction played out as world history. In earlier times, there were lot more empty spaces between different Cultures and Civilizations and as time has gone on, all these Cultures and Civilizations have filled up the empty spaces between them. As a result, the interactions have increased in frequency accompanied by an increase in uncertainty of how these interactions play out. The antiquity of Indian civilization is explained by McNeill as a product of being protected by mountains in the North while at the same time being invaded by barbarians through passes in those mountains.
Oswald Spengler - Spengler is the blood and soil theorist for whom Cultures and Civilizations are tied to the soil from where they originated. His theories look upon the interaction of Cultures and Civilizations as weakening the potency of the original civilization. Moving them away from their original place of birth makes them rootless or paraphrasing him, 'Cosmopolitanism is the essence of rootlessness'.
Halford Mackinder - Mackinder's works were in the early 20th century (1904) when Britain was an Imperial colossus and as such, he is partial to the British Imperialist worldview. His contention is that the fate of the world empires rests on Central Asia. During the Age of Discovery(Columbian Age), European powers expanded across the oceans facing 'negligible resistance'. Once there was no more space for expansion, they fought 2 world wars with each other. He designates Central Asia (including Russia) as the heartland, Eurasia and Africa as World Island and the lands of major religions as Monsoon lands - Far East (Buddhism - Pacific Ocean), India (Hinduism - Indian Ocean), Europe (Christianity - Atlantic Ocean), Middle East (Islam, Judaism, Christianity) with each region being influenced by religion and in turn, influencing them. His famous dictum was:
Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland:
Who rules the Heartland commands the World Island:
Who rules the World Island commands the World:
In his analyses, Mongol invasion of India, China, Turkey decimated those Cultures and Civilizations while Europe was spared that fate and subsequently mastered the world. It was Mackinder's theses that Hitler used (by the way of Karl Hushofer) in coming up with his idea of Lebensraum(Living Space) that became the driving force behind Nazi Germany's invasions. Mackinder's reputation was restored after Second World War by Robert Strausz Hupe by injecting individual and moral responsibility as the differentiating factor between Mackinder's original thesis and its adaptation by Haushofer and Nazis.
Marshall G.S. Hodgson - His work primarily concerns itself with how Islam grew as it did but given the breadth of Islam's presence across the world, it serves as an useful reminder of the influence of geography on religion. He also points out how Euro centrism has seriously distorted geographical analyses, the main exhibit being Mercator Projection which shows Europe with a far larger landmass than it actually is (a familiar issue for anyone who works with GIS).
Nicholas J Spykman - Spykman develops his theory keeping US at its center. He explains how America became a hegemonic power with the conclusion of Spanish American War of 1898 as it allowed it to control the Greater Caribbean Sea and with it, control of the Americas. Spykman looks at Americas not as 2 continents (the North and the South) as is currently understood from the maps but between people to the north of jungle around Amazon river and those to the south of it. In his view, Russia (then Soviet Union) is a land power forever looking to get access to the sea (This might explain why Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan - to destabilize Pakistan and advance to the Indian Ocean). George Kennan's Long Telegram that gave rise to the policy of Containment of Soviet Union during Cold War can be explained through Spykman's view of Soviet Union's intentions. Spykman also pointed out that an unified Europe (with a single foreign policy enforced through European armed forces) would be a competitor to US, not an ally.
Alfred Thayer Mahan - Mahan's thesis influenced countless American presidents in late 1800s and early 1900s to invest heavily in naval power as America was becoming a hegemonic power. Indian and Chinese Navy officials currently look to Mahan as their respective countries grow stronger. According to Mahan, travel by water is easier and cheaper than by land and hence determines the outcome of global political struggles, something that Britain and then US used to become major powers.
Paul Bracken - According to Bracken, there is a crisis of room in Asia with all the countries progressing economically and investing in military hardware and software while being confronted by shrinking empty spaces between them. That in addition to disruptive technologies (computers, viruses, weapons of mass destruction) means there is high uncertainty about how these interactions will play out.
Other Books of interest:
A Hundred Horizons: The Indian Ocean in the Age of Global Empire by Sugata Bose
Another Bloody Century: Future Warfare by Colin S Gray
Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes
The Peloponnesian War by Thucydides
Fire in the East: The Rise of Asian Military Power and the Second Nuclear Age by Paul Bracken
Monsoon: The Indian Ocean and the Future of American Power by Robert D Kaplan
Copyright © 2017 Kunthavaiyin Kaathalan
Copyright © 2017 Kunthavaiyin Kaathalan
No comments:
Post a Comment