Geopolitics

Chapter One: Thinking about Geopolitics

1. Introduction
1.1. Defining Geo-politics

All concepts have histories and geographies and the term ―geopolitics‖ is no exception. Coined
originally in 1899 by a Swedish political scientist named Rudolf Kjellen, the word ―geopolitics‖
has had a long and varied history in the twentieth century, moving well beyond its original
meaning in Kjellen‘s work to signify a general concern with geography and politics (geo-
politics). Back in the early years of the twentieth century, Kjellen and other imperialist thinkers
understood geopolitics as that part of Western imperial knowledge that dealt with the
relationship between the physical earth and politics. Associated later with the notorious Nazi
foreign policy goal of Lebensraum (the pursuit of more ―living space‖ for the German nation),
the term fell out of favor with many writers and commentators after World War II (O‘Loughlin,
1994). During the later years of the Cold War, geopolitics was used to describe the global contest
between the Soviet Union and the United States for influence and control over the states and 1
strategic resources of the world. Former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger almost single-
handedly helped to revive the term in the 1970s by using it as a synonym for the superpower
game of balance-of-power politics played out across the global political map.

Since then geopolitics has enjoyed a revival of interest across the world as foreign policy makers,
strategic analysts, transnational managers and academics have struggled to make sense of the
dynamics of the world political map. One reason why geopolitics has become popular once again
is that it deals with comprehensive visions of the world political map. Geopolitics addresses the
―big picture‖ and offers a way of relating local and regional dynamics to the global system as a
whole. It enflames a great variety of dramas, conflicts and dynamics within a grand strategic
perspective by offering an Olympian viewpoint that many find attractive and desirable.
Furthermore, while unavoidably textual, it nevertheless promotes a spatial way of thinking that
arranges different actors, elements and locations simultaneously on a global chessboard. It has a
multidimensional global cachet—global both in a geographical (worldwide) and a conceptual
(comprehensive and total) sense—and appears more visual than verbal, more objective and

Prepared By: Jemal Seid, October 2019, 2022 Page 1

detatched than subjective and ideological. In addition, geopolitics is of interest to certain people
because it seems to promise unusual insight into the future direction of international affairs and
the coming shape of the world political map. Many decision makers and analysts come to
geopolitics in search of crystal ball visions of the future, visions that get beyond the beclouded
confusion of the immediate to offer glimpses of a future where faultlines of conflict and
cooperation are clear. In a shrinking and speeding world of intense time-space compression
wrought by telecommunication revolutions and globalizing economic networks and webs, the
desire for perspectives offering ―timeless insight‖ is stronger than ever. In complex post-modern
times, in sum, geopolitical visions and visionaries seem to thrive.

Cartoon: Hands off!

This British postcard dates from the beginning of the century and features the British lion rebuking the threatening advance of the
German eagle towards the globe. Source: Tuathail, et al (1998, Geopolitics reader: 154)
1.2. Geopolitics in and outside of Political Geography
Geography, as a dynamic and ancient field of study, deals with the study of spatial distribution,
relation, interaction, variation, processes, and man-environment relationship of phenomenon.
The fundamental focus of geographical learning is on understanding the relationship between
man and environment. Geography as a discipline has two major branches: Physical Geography

Prepared By: Jemal Seid, October 2019, 2022 Page 2

and Human Geography. Political geography, as a part of Human Geography, recognizes that
these six entities: power, politics and policy, space, place and territory are intrinsically linked.

Political geography had long held geopolitics as its component, but what and how is geopolitics
today? Two distinct understandings of geopolitics will suffice for the purpose of this very short
introduction. First, geopolitics offers for many a reliable guide of the global landscape using
geographical descriptions, metaphors, and templates such as ‘iron curtain’, ‗Third World‘,
and/or ‗rogue state’, ‗iron curtain’, etc. Second, it helps to generate a simple model of the world,
which can then be used to advise and inform foreign and security policy making (Dodds, 2007).
Because, geography has always played an important role in human affairs. It has shaped the
identity, character, and history of nation-states; it has helped and hindered their social, political,
and economic development; and it has played an important role in their international relations.
Geopolitics is the study of the influence of geographical factors on state behaviour – how
location, climate, natural resources, population, and physical terrain determine a state‘s foreign
policy options and its position in the hierarchy of states.

Even though the term ‗geopolitics‘ was first coined by Rudolf Kjellén, a Swedish political 3
scientist, in 1899, it only came into use in the 1930s, when it was championed by a group of
German political geographers in/outside of Nazi party. Numerous scholars in the West and in
Russia, China, and Japan developed an interest in geopolitics as a science of statecraft, a method
of thinking through the supposed significance of geographical factors in international relations.
As a field of study, geopolitics was inspired by the work of two major nineteenth-century
scholars: Alfred Thayer Mahan (1840–1914) and Sir Halford John Mackinder (1861–1947).
However, one might also note the influence of the German pioneer of geopolitics, Friedrich
Ratzel (1844–1904), and the French geographer Pierre Vidal de la Blache (1845–1918).
1.2.1. Why Geopolitics Over Political Geography
If geography is the study of the Earth and International Relations is the study of the World, it
can be argued that geopolitics is the study of ―turning the Earth into the World. Geopolitics,
like political geography, deals with concepts such as power, politics, and policy, and space,
place, and territory, and embraces an innumerable multitude of interactions within these various
fields. According to the Penguin Dictionary of Human Geography the distinction between
political geography and geopolitics is clear: geopolitics is concerned with the spatial

Prepared By: Jemal Seid, October 2019, 2022 Page 3

requirements of a state, while political geography examines only its spatial conditions. Thus,
unlike geography or political geography, geopolitics has always had a national bias. Despite the
long lasting history of geopolitics (over one hundred years), the terms ―geopolitics‖ and
―political geography‖ are used almost as synonyms of the same discipline. This is a serious
mistake resulting from misunderstanding of theory-cognitive fundaments of these two areas of
knowledge.

Indeed, geopolitics, although it was born within the political science, was for a long time
represented mostly by researchers coming from the environments of geographers. However,
geopolitics is within sciences about politics practiced mainly by representatives of social
sciences, with political sciences at the top. In this context there arises a statement that geography
is treated as a uniform (static with dry narrations) discipline of science, nothing else than the
description of Earth (from Greek words: (geos – the Earth and politikos – civic, derivative term
of the word polis) – city (city-country). The next point of divergence is the way of treating
human in geographical research. It is about whether it should be grasped as the element of the
natural environment, or maybe it is geo-space that is considered from the human’s point of view
4
in geopolitics. Social sciences cannot be subject to the same criteria like natural or exact
sciences, due to the fact that their main point of reference is human and manifestations of his
activity.

Karl Haushofer (1869-1946) wrote that political geography considers the country from the angle
of space, while geopolitics considers space from the point of view of the country. Other
outstanding German geopolitician, Adolf Grabowsky (1880-1969) wrote that geographers,
including political geographers, perceive the Earth and its features as invariable, while
geopolitics notices the dynamics of space, things that are variable, what has a different meaning
for every historical era and each centre of power. Regarding this, geopolitics must be included in
political sciences. The political geography does not search for answers to the key questions of
politics. So it is not interested in reasons of the creation and fall of the countries, the genesis of
international conflicts, or the formation of this, and not a different world order. Geopolitics
examines the ―dynamics of the space‖, there is no term of the present, there is only the past and
the future. To sum up, we can thus state that geography, including political geography, is a kind
of tool for geopolitics, like mathematics is one for engineers.

Prepared By: Jemal Seid, October 2019, 2022 Page 4

Dodds, Kuus, and Sharp (n.d) stated that [g]eopolitics is the analysis of the interaction between,
on the one hand, geographical settings and perspectives and, on the other hand, political
processes. (...) Both geographical settings and political processes are dynamic, and each
influences and is influenced by the other. Geopolitics addresses the consequences of this
interaction.

In short, geopolitics;
 Is geography + power + politics + international relations
 Helps us understand the arrangements & forces that are transforming the map of the
world
 Studies the relationships between demography, economics, environment, geography,
and politics and how they influence countries foreign and national security policies.
1.3. Geopolitics vs. Geostrategy
The fashionable term ‗geopolitics‘ is used willy-nilly these days, and increasingly so, mainly by
international relations academics, think-tankers, politicians and foreign affairs officials, in the
belief that the term adds respectability to what they are propounding. Sometimes, they confuse
the word with ‗geostrategy‘ (Mallinson, and Ristic 2016). Geostrategy, specifically, encompasses
policy suggestions based on geographic facts or it is the strategic direction of geopolitics. Or it
is a geographic direction of the state‘s foreign policy. More precisely, it describes where a state
concentrates its efforts by projecting military power and directing diplomatic activity. The

Prepared By: Jemal Seid, October 2019, 2022 Page 5

underlying assumption is that states have limited resources and are unable, even if they are
willing, to conduct an all-out foreign policy. Instead, they must focus militarily and politically
on specific areas of the world. Geostrategy describes the foreign policy thrust/push/ of a state and
doesn‘t deal with motivations or decision making process. The Geostrategy of a state, therefore,
is not necessarily motivated by geographic geopolitical factors. A state may project power to a
location because of ideological reasons, interest groups, or simply the whim of its leaders. So,
thinkers may be divided as geopolitical (Ratzel/Father of Political Geography, Kjellen, etc) vs.
geostrategic thinkers (Mackinder, Spykman, etc).

1.4. Geopolitics Vs. Geoeconomics

Geoeconomics and geopolitics are closely linked. Geoeconomics is gradually replacing the
importance of Geopolitics. The transition is marked by the start of the process we call
Globalization, about two decades old now, but still in its infancy, when government and
government institutions discovered that they no longer were self-evident key actors and
watchmen of world events. The process is an effect of the end of the Cold War and marks a
strategic shift from political ideologies to economic realities. With the shift from Geopolitics to
Geoeconomics, the aim is no longer the Heartland or the Rimland, or any coherent geographical 6

region, but trade, all geographical locations containing important natural resources, what we
shall call the Nareland (Natural Resource Lands). This new logic of dispersed geographical
locations identifies the shift from Geopolitics to Geoeconomics. For the West this is not only a
return to Political Realism but a return to the understanding of competition as the Competitive
Advantage of Nations, as expressed by classical authors such as Adam Smith, Machiavelli and
Marco Polo and in more recent times by Michael Porter (Søilen, 2010).

By Geoeconomics we mean the study of factors of power that are directly related to the
Competitive Advantage of a nation. In the era of Globalization the means for achieving a
Competitive Advantage is predominantly through the use of Multinational Enterprises/MNEs.
By factors of power we mean, a series of variables like economic size, economic growth, skills
necessary to master vital scientific or commercial progress and the ability to force others to
comply with your interests. It is these factors that form a Nation‘s Competitive Advantage, and
no nation today has understood these correlations better and is taking them more seriously into
account than China. It is the reason why the West and in particular the US is losing its strength.

Prepared By: Jemal Seid, October 2019, 2022 Page 6

In the era of the Geoeconomic Imperatives of Deterritorialisation, the term geoeconomics has
become popular but it lacks an agreed definition. Most commonly, it is understood as the use of
economic tools to advance geopolitical objectives. Other definitions reverse the ends and means,
emphasizing how flexing geopolitical muscle is used for economic results. Broadly, one can
think of geoeconomics as the interplay of international economics, geopolitics and strategy.
Following the Cold War, the importance of military power was giving way to geoeconomic
power. One reason the term is more commonly used now is the rise of China, which is
increasingly using economic tools to project power. Two other factors are also relevant: the
revival of state capitalism and state-owned enterprises means that states have more economic
resources at their disposal; and the deep integration of global trade links and financial markets
has made geoeconomic tools more powerful. Though geo-economics is both the antithesis and
the greatest triumph of economic globalization, it has been affected by seven challenges to
globalization per (Leonard, 2015).

 Challenge One: Economic warfare

 Challenge Two: The geopoliticization of trade talks
 Challenge Three: State capitalism 2.0 (state-owned enterprises competing with the private) 7

 Challenge Four: Competition for gated markets, not natural resources

 Challenge Five: The survival of the biggest and hollowing out of the periphery
 Challenge Six: China‘s infrastructure-driven alliances
 Challenge Seven: The decline/rise in oil prices
Discussion Points:
 Make a brief discussion on what Geoculture means and make critical comparisons with
geopolitics.
 Make discussions on Geohistory in light to its meaning, points of convergences and
divergences with geopolitics.

In the geoeconomics world, as per Boyer's theory (2004), we do have four types of advanced
capitalism: "market" (such as the United States), "meso-corporatist" (such as Japan),
"public/integration" (France) and "social democratic" (the Scandinavian countries).

Prepared By: Jemal Seid, October 2019, 2022 Page 7

1.5. Historical Development of Geopolitics

Political geography developed as a branch of the discipline of geography and was in common in
use until the invention of ―geopolitics in 1899. Political geography argued that states politics is
inseparable from their geography (Gökmen, 2010). Geopolitical reasoning dates back to ancient
Greece. Aristotle derived the respective political systems of the Greek city states and their
neighbouring empires and tribes from climatic conditions. Similar ideas were prominent in
France during the Renaissance. Immanuel Kant also linked presumed characteristics of peoples
to climatic factors. Three factors contributed to the establishment of geopolitics as a distinct
subject (Dodds, 2007).

First, economic nationalism and trade protectionism was on the rise as imperial European states
such as Britain and France agonized over the shifting and increasingly interconnected nature of
the global economy. The rise of the United States as a trading power created further unease
amongst these European powers.

Second, imperial powers pursued an aggressive search for new territories in Africa and
elsewhere in the mid to late 19th century. While imperial accumulation was on the rise, 8
European powers confronted each other over ownership and access to those colonial territories.
Britain and France were embroiled in tense encounters in North Africa, and Britain and Russia
continued to jostle and parry in Central Asia under the sobriquet of the ‗Great Game‘.
Ultimately, countries such as Britain and Germany engaged in rearmament, which provoked
fears that conflict might materialize in Europe rather than simply erupt in faraway European held
colonies.

Third, the growth of universities and the establishment of geography as an academic discipline
created new opportunities for scholars to teach and research the subject. The alleged scientific
status of geopolitics was important in establishing claims to intellectual legitimacy and policy
relevance.

1.5.1. Stages of Modern Geopolitics

Modern geopolitics has developed through five stages—the race for imperial hegemony; German
geopolitik; American geopolitics; the Cold War–state centered versus universalistic
geographical; and the post–Cold War period.

Prepared By: Jemal Seid, October 2019, 2022 Page 8

STAGE 1: The Race for Imperial Hegemony
Geopolitical thinking can be traced back to Aristotle, Strabo, Bodin, Montesquieu, Kant, and
Hegel. Its nineteenth-century precursors include Humboldt, Guyot, Buckle, and Ritter. However,
the founders of modern geopolitics were Ratzel, Mackinder, Kjellen, Bowman, and Mahan,
whose writings reflected their era of intense nationalism, state expansionism, and overseas
empire building. The principles and laws of these leading theoreticians reflected their national
perspectives and experiences, including command of modes of transportation and
communication for world outreach as well as the influence of social Darwinism.

STAGE 2: Rise of 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. Alsace-Lorraine was returned to France, small border areas were
annexed by Belgium, and North Schleswig was returned to Denmark in a plebiscite. Historic
Prussia was divided. In West Prussia, Poznan (Posen) went to Poland, as did the land that
constituted the Polish Corridor. Danzig became a ―free city‖ and, in the easternmost part of East 9
Prussia, the Memel Territory first came under the League of Nations, administered by France,
and was then annexed by Lithuania. Parts of Upper Silesia went to Poland and Czechoslovakia.
The Saar was put under French administration, pending a plebiscite to be held in 1935 to
determine its final status, and the Rhineland was occupied by Allied forces. Germany was now
but a shadow of the expanding giant state of Ratzel‘s and Kjellen‘s imperial era.

In addition, the social cohesion forged by Bismarck‘s policies was shattered. The socialist
Weimar Republic was beleaguered by class warfare and attempts to overthrow it by Communists
on the left and racist militant nationalists and aristocratic conservatives on the right.
Unemployment was rampant and inflation raged. This was the setting within which Karl
Haushofer and his colleagues established the Zeitschrift für Geopolitik (1924–39) and the
Institute for Geopolitics at the University of Munich. Undoing Versailles by restoring the lost
territories and rebuilding Germany as a world power undergirded the pseudoscientific ―laws‖ and
principles of geopolitik that served Nazi Germany.

Prepared By: Jemal Seid, October 2019, 2022 Page 9

STAGE 3: Rise of Geopolitics in the United States
Most American academic geographers vigorously rejected German geopolitik, resulting in a
general reluctance to pursue the study of geopolitics. Nicholas Spykman, a US scholar of
international relations who had been born in Amsterdam, was one of the few who did work in the
field during this period (1942–44). 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
10
same global view as Mackinder, but he rejected the landpower doctrine of the latter and said,
“Who controls the rimland rules Eurasia; who rules Eurasia controls the destinies of the
world.” To Spykman, the rimland (Mackinder’s “Marginal Crescent”) 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.”

STAGE 4: The Cold War–State-Centered Versus Universalistic Approaches

On this day in 1947, Bernard Baruch, the multimillionaire financier and adviser to presidents
from Woodrow Wilson to Harry S. Truman, coined the term ―Cold War‖ to describe the
increasingly chilly relations between two World War II Allies: the United States and the Soviet
Union. Onset of the Cold War reawakened Western interest in geopolitics. This came from
historians, political scientists, and statesmen, not from geographers, who had distanced
themselves from geopolitics because of the taint of German geopolitik.

Prepared By: Jemal Seid, October 2019, 2022 Page 10

  State-Centered Geopolitics
American Cold Warriors embraced geopolitics as a basis for a national policy aimed at
confronting the Soviet Union and international Communism. Building on early geographically
derived geopolitical theories and holding static interpretations of global and regional spatial
patterns, they introduced such political-strategic concepts as containment, domino theory,
balance-of-power linkages, and linchpin states into the lexicon of Cold War geopolitics.
 Universalistic Geopolitics
When geographers reengaged in geopolitics in the 1960s and 1970s, they introduced theories
based upon universalistic/holistic views of the world and the dynamic nature of geographical
space. Three approaches predominated: (1) a polycentric international power system; (2) a
unitary economy based world system; and (3) an environmentally and socially ordered
geopolitics. Because these fresh geographical theories challenged bipolar Cold War geopolitics,
they had little appeal to the Cold Warriors and failed to make their way into popular ―political‖
geopolitics as practiced by statesmen and popularly disseminated through the press. The
polycentric or multinodal/multilevel power approach (mentioned above) rejected the Halford
Mackinder‘s heartland theory of world domination. 11
STAGE 5: Post–Cold War Era: Competition or Accommodation?
The end of the Cold War era has generated a number of new and diverging approaches to
geopolitics. For Francis Fukuyama, the passing of Marxism-Leninism and the triumph of
Western liberal democracy and ―free marketism‖ portended/ signified/ a universal, homogeneous
state. In this idealized worldview, geographical differences, and therefore geopolitics, have little
role to play. Fukuyama has more recently theorized that for the next couple of decades,
authoritarianism will become stronger in much of the world, especially Russia and China, and
that the United States cannot do much to arrest it (Cohen, 2015).

For others, the end of the Cold War has heralded a ―new world order‖ and the geopolitics of US
global hegemony. Still another approach is Robert Kaplan‘s geopolitics of anarchy. From the
perspective of a world divided into the rich North and the poor South, Kaplan concludes that the
South, especially Africa, is doomed to anarchy and chaos. The main thrust/push of post–Cold
War geopolitics, however, continues to follow the two streams of the previous era—the nation-
centered/political and the universalistic/geographical.

Prepared By: Jemal Seid, October 2019, 2022 Page 11

 1.5.2. Geopolitics in the Present
Geographers who carry out research on international relations have shifted towards
constructivism. Today policy advisers, most prominently Robert Kaplan, are much closer to the
classical branch of geopolitics. This shows that geographical conditions are understood as the
physical reality of matter and why. Thinking geopolitically means recognising ‗the most blunt,
uncomfortable, and deterministic of truths: those of geography‘. It is also argued that national
power in the 21st century is determined by the vastness of a country‘s resources and its ability to
generate other sources of wealth to purchase resources, especially oil. The character and
frequency of future warfare will depend on three interrelated factors: the political environment in
which decisions on resource issues are taken, the demand for and supply of these resources,
including possibilities to substitute them, and their spatial (place or space) characteristics. To
sum up, the geopolitical discourse evolved across the following eras.
Discourses of Geopolitics
Discourse Key Intellectuals Dominant Lexicon
Imperialist Geopolitics Alfred Mahan Sea Power
Friedrich Ratzel Lebensraum
Halford Mackinder Landpower/Heartland 12
Karl Haushofer Landpower/Heartland
Nicholas Spikman Rimlands
Cold-War Geopolitics George Kennan Containment

Soviet and Western Political States were either satellites or

and military leaders dominos as well as in the West
and East blocks
The New World Order Michael Gorbachev New political thinking
Geopolitics Francis Fukuyama The End of History
Edward Luttwak Statist Geo-economics
George Bush US led New World Order
Leaders of G7, IMF, WTO Transnational liberalism/
Neoliberalism
Strategic planners of the Rogue States, nuclear outlaws,
Pentagon and NATO & terrorists
Samuel Huntington Clash of Civilizations
Environmental World Commission on Sustainable Developement
geopolitics Environment and Development
Al Gore Strategic environmental

Prepared By: Jemal Seid, October 2019, 2022 Page 12

 initiative
Robert Kaplan Coming anarchy
Thomas Homer-Dixon Environmental scarcity
Michael Renner Environmental security
1.6. Three Pillars of Geopolitics
Bringing together classical geopolitics and contemporary geopolitics leads to three pillars for a
geopolitical approach to international relations – an approach focused on the physical reality that
states face. In this sense, geographical conditions are understood as location, physical geography
and man-made structures in geographical space. The latter broadly refer to what Cohen describes
as ecumene, effective territory and empty areas (Dodds, K, Kuus, M., and Sharp, J. (n.d).

The first pillar of revitalised geopolitics is recognising that geographical conditions must not be
seen as an irreversible fate. Making geographical conditions being deterministic truths is a
buzzword for a non-academic audience. Geographical conditions are, rather, a set of obstacles
and opportunities, meaning a structure that is independent of agency because geographical
conditions often constitute a sine qua non for social processes. Understanding geographical
conditions thus enables us to explain various social phenomena to a great extent.
13
Second, geographical conditions are the fundament of suitable explanations for general patterns
and long-term processes. They are of much less use when it comes to casespecific particularities
and short-term developments. This principle is best exemplified by what Spykman wrote about
coming and going ministers, on the one hand, and unperturbed mountain ranges, on the other:
coming and going ministers cause minor, short-term fluctuations within patterns determined at
large by mountain ranges. Cohen goes a step further, arguing that ‗geopolitical analysis does not
predict the timing of events […] that force radical change in the geopolitical map‘. It
concentrates on ‗conditions that are likely to bring about geopolitical change‘. Geopolitics is not
about predicting events.

Third, in addition to geographical conditions, non-geographical intervening factors have to be

recognised. Technology appears to be the most important intervening factor. Spykman pointed
out that large rivers usually form a considerable barrier to the expansion of states. Yet
advancements in navigation can turn a river into a means of transportation that prescribes the
direction of national expansion.

Prepared By: Jemal Seid, October 2019, 2022 Page 13

1.7. The Three Ages of Geopolitics
1.7.1. Civilizational Geopolitics
In the late eighteenth century a civilizational geopolitics emerged as part of the reaction to the
struggle for stability in a Western Europe that had lost its cosmic centre based on a common
Christianity at the time of the Wars of Religion. This version of the modern geopolitical
imagination peaked in influence in the first half of the nineteenth century. Before that time, its
various principles were not engaged with one another in a common whole in the way they were
to be after 1815. The international political economy from 1815 until 1875 was characterized by
a European Concert in which no one state ‗laid down the law‘ for the others within Europe, and
by an emerging British economic dominance in much of the rest of the world. The Concert was
designed to limit the revolutionary impulses emanating from the French Revolution of 1789 and
its aftermath. Wars to foment revolution or to acquire territory were seen as threats to the balance
of power between the dominant states or Great Powers. The British economic hegemony gave
impetus to the final collapse of the Concert of Europe, already threatened by the emergence of
new states in Europe (such as Germany and Italy) without any commitment to it, and the
emergence of a global system of competing empires as others, from Germany, France, the United 14

States and Japan, attempted to follow in Britain‘s footsteps.

The nineteenth century wore on, a new conception of statehood based on the creation of nation-
states came to the fore. These were states built upon cultural divisions and particularities. In the
identity of state with nation, territorial sovereignty was fused with the fate of the nation. This
new system of states had no place for civilizational geopolitics. It was in the political–economic
context of 1815–75 that civilizational geopolitics was most fully established, even though the
principles it drew on had older roots. Its main elements were a commitment to European
uniqueness as a civilization; a belief that the roots of European distinctiveness were found in
its past. From a physical-geographical region the geographical realm of Europe was transformed
into a cultural region. Imaginative maps showed Europe as a ‗queen‟ among the continents,
having not only a sense of difference but also an emerging sense of superiority. Over the next
centuries, the feeling of superiority ‗gradually hardened into an inflexible conceit that held
Europe to be the most civilized and best governed of all the world regions‘. This was particularly
marked in the United States – in the minds of its leaders very much an extension of European

Prepared By: Jemal Seid, October 2019, 2022 Page 14

ideals (Greece, Rome) beyond the physical boundaries of Europe. To keep the dominant in
world civilizations, Europeans followed different methods: exploration, colonization of open
trade and imperialism, etc. World would be modernized if it follows European models.

15
1.7.2. Naturalized Geopolitics
In cultural anthropology the idea of totemism refers to the practice of interpreting nature in the
vocabulary of human groups, such as kinship and genealogy, whereas naturalization does the
opposite. It represents the human entirely in terms of natural processes and phenomena. Rather
than being a feature of civilization, geopolitics was now largely determined by the natural
character of states. Humanity had lost control of its destiny. Nature ruled in affairs of state.
Economic success was at another one‘s expense (relative ascent and decline), and a world of
fixed geographical attributes and environmental conditions had predictable effects on a state‘s
global status.
The world was then known and possessed not just politically but epistemologically. The world
needs to understand a depoliticized inter-imperial rivalry into a set of natural and determining
geographical ‗facts of life‘. As the old Concert of Europe unraveled/stopped/ in the 1870s, two
antagonistic groups of states emerged. One, led by Britain and France (with covert US support),
stood for the coexistence. The other, headed by Germany, was revisionist– concerned to build
their own empires and challenge British financial dominance. By the 1890s, this division had

Prepared By: Jemal Seid, October 2019, 2022 Page 15

become the major feature of world politics. The apparently inexorable and inevitable slide into
war associated with the First World War. Europeans had become masters of nature as a result of
superior ‗fitness’ in a natural process of evolution based on Charles Darwin intellectual sources.

1.7.3. Ideological Geopolitics

By definition, the modern geopolitical imagination is ideological, if ideology is defined as an
amalgam of ideas, symbols and strategies for promoting or changing a social and cultural , or it
is ‘political ideas in action‘. After the Second World War, however, the geopolitical
imagination was centred much more explicitly around competing conceptions of how best to
organize the international political economy. Cold War geopolitics was ‗linguacultural‟. One of
these, the United States, was to prove the more effective in gaining widespread acceptance for its
model of political–economic organization. But its success relied heavily on the active presence
of the other as a point of comparison and threat.

The ideological character of the conflict defining the period needs emphasizing. The historian
Anders Stephanson (1995, 123) has noted that this is largely why the Cold War remained cold.
The spheres of influence established immediately after the Second World War proved rather
16
long-lasting because, given each side‘s possession of nuclear weapons that each could deliver
to the homeland of the other, the party disturbing the status quo would face potentially
devastating consequences. In response, the definition of ideologically opposite geopolitical zones
put a premium on maintaining doctrinal purity on both sides of the ‗fence‘ that divided the two
worlds. Consequently, geopolitical and military realities served to keep the struggle preeminently
in the realm of ideology. The rivalry generated an arms race of mind-boggling waste and
destructiveness, and it fueled numerous deadly conflicts in the Third World via proxy; but never
once did it escalate into open hostilities between NATO and the Warsaw Pact.

Mutual suspicion had origins that went back to the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917. All the major
industrialized countries except the Soviet Union accepted the rules of the international economic
game as written in Washington, DC, either through external inducement (as with the aid from the
1947 Marshall Plan) and coercion (as with the British dollar loan of 1946) or through direct
intervention and reconstruction under US auspices (as in West Germany and Japan) via:
1. Indirect stimulation of economic growth by means of fiscal and monetary policies;
2. Commitment to a growing global marketplace based on a global division of labour;

Prepared By: Jemal Seid, October 2019, 2022 Page 16

 3. Accepting the dollar as the principal world currency;
4. Hostility to Soviet-style economic planning;
5. Assuming the burden of policing political changes that could be construed as damaging
to the stability of the world economy.
In the end, domestic conditions in the two main states undermined the global status of each. By
the 1980s the Soviet economy had failed to deliver both improved military equipment and
improved living standards for the Soviet population as the Communist Party and its leadership
sank into complacency. For the United States, internationalization was too successful. But, by
the early 1970s the growth of other economies produced pressures on the dollar and the drain of
policing proved increasingly expensive. Later, the „loss‟ of China to communist revolution was
a particularly important element in deepening US–Soviet mutual hostility. After times, during
times of coexistence or detente, the overarching Cold War conflict served both to tie such
important states as Germany and Japan into the US system and to define two geopolitical spheres
of influence in which each generally accepted the other‘s dominance. This imposed stability on
world politics. In this setting, ideological geopolitics developed the following major
characteristics: 17
 A central systemic–ideological conflict over political–economic organization;
 ‗Three Worlds’ of development in which US and Soviet spheres of influence vied for
expansion into a ‗Third World‘ of former colonies and ‗non-aligned‘ states;
 A homogenization of global space into ‗friendly’ and ‘threatening’ blocs in which universal
models of capitalism–liberal democracy and communism reigned free of geographical
contingency;
 And the naturalization of the ideological conflict by such key concepts as containment,
domino effects and hegemonic stability. Three geopolitical concepts played especially
important roles in naturalizing these understandings of space and global politics for
Americans and others. These were containment, domino effects and hegemonic stability.
Containment, first enunciated by Kennan, referred to the military and economic
sequestration of the Soviet Union. The main way in which the scope of containment was
enlarged was through the logic of the so-called domino theory or domino effects. This
argues that the sooner some potential threat to the global status quo was confronted,
wherever it might occur, the less likely was it to produce a spread or contagion effect that

Prepared By: Jemal Seid, October 2019, 2022 Page 17

 could eventually lead all the way back to the United States. The Hegemonic Stability
Theory advocates that the world can be in order and peace if and only the Super Hegemon
(Like the US) operates and controls global behaviors (Agnew, 2003).

Ideologically, ‗Isolationism’ versus ‗internationalism’ has been the typical language of foreign
policy debate in the United States. But by the 1940s the dominant elites of each aspired to global
ideological dominion of internationalism/ engagements. This outlook had more idealistic
origins. In 1823 President James Monroe (Monroe Doctrine) had issued the statement that the
United States would oppose all foreign intervention in the American hemisphere. During the
Cold War period, the Monroe Doctrine licensed US governments to intervene throughout the
western hemisphere and, by extension, into the rest of the world. Soviet Union was disintegrated
in 1988–89 into different republics, ending the continuation of Cold War bipolarity.

In this ideological approach, countries are found within threefold categorization i) traditional
(backward) versus modern and ii) modern-ideological versus modern-free. At a first cut, the
modern developed world is distinguished from the traditional underdeveloped world (the Third
World). At a second cut, the modern world is divided into two parts: a non-ideological 18
(capitalist) or natural (free). For example, theories of development (e.g Dependency Theory) in
the Third World settings as Latin America and Africa reject the argument that the sources of
uneven development are to be found within poorer countries themselves. Again, the Non-
Aligned Movement of such Third World leaders as Tito (Yugoslavia), Nehru (India) and Nasser
(Egypt) attempted to subvert the very idea of a simple choice between the United States and the
Soviet Union.

1.8. Power and Geography in the Geopolitical Analysis

1.8.1. Power and Geopolitics

i. Four Pillars of Power

A nation‘s claim to power rests on four pillars: (1) overwhelming military strength and the
willingness to use it; (2) surplus economic energy to enable it to provide aid and invest in other
states; (3) ideological leadership that serves as a model for other nations; and (4) a cohesive
system of governance.

Prepared By: Jemal Seid, October 2019, 2022 Page 18

The first pillar is the military. This period of transition from a world dominated by superpowers
to a polycentric power system is marked by significant changes in the nature of warfare. The
United States, by far the world‘s strongest traditional military power, has overwhelming strength
in tanks, aircraft, naval fleets, and superbly equipped armed forces. Nevertheless, it failed to
attain its political goals in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, etc. as guerrilla warfare and terrorism
has torn those countries apart. The lessons learned from America‘s military experience in
Afghanistan and Iraq are twofold. First, soft power may yield greater success than warfare (hard
power), and second, weapons of warfare are radically changing. In wars against guerrillas and
terrorists, drones—unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) with surveillance and missile capacities
and robots—and unmanned ground vehicle (UGVs), combined with special strike forces and
cyberwarfare, have proven more effective than traditional weapons and massed armed forces.

The second pillar, economic capacity, is even more important than the military. The United
States, Europe, and Japan have just recovered from the deep recession of 2008. This is reflected
in the caution which Washington has recently displayed in responding to political and military
crises throughout the world. Its foreign policy has been strongly influenced by high domestic
unemployment and huge indebtedness that have preoccupied the country while turmoil rages in 19

the Middle East. The fear that countries like China and Japan will withdraw their bond holdings
also tempers Washington‘s geopolitical actions. With respect to these pillars, China, for its part,
lacks the capacity to apply military power beyond its contiguous Asian borders. Instead, it relies
on economic trade and investment to extend its influence. In doing so, the Chinese have used
their sovereign funds to purchase or invest in natural resources throughout the world.

The third pillar is ideological leadership. Americans have taken pride in their ideals, which are a
blend of the principles of freedom of expression and religion, concern for human rights, the
rewards of free enterprise, and the practice of democracy in governance. Since the founding of
the republic, these principles have been widely embraced throughout the world. However, much
of US foreign policy has often not been true to them. While preaching democracy, Washington
has long supported dictatorships and overthrown governments not to its liking. It has tolerated
widespread corruption in supporting allies. The Arab Spring was only the last of the upheavals
that laid bare the contradiction between the myth of American exceptionalism and its practice of
realpolitik.

Prepared By: Jemal Seid, October 2019, 2022 Page 19

The fourth pillar is political cohesiveness. Stalemate between the major parties or groups can be
a factor in undermining governments‘ ability to provide international leadership. A government
that can suddenly be shut down, budgets that cannot be agreed upon and a proposed health
system that divide nations are poor models for international friends and foes alike.
ii. Order of power
This hierarchical system is dynamic, not static. Instead of a world ordered by superpowers, an
international geopolitical system that is emerging is polycentric and polyarchic. It is built on a
hierarchical combination of great and regional powers. The major powers are first-order states
with the capacities and ambitions to expand their influence beyond the regions within which they
are located.

Competing with major powers are the regional powers, or second-order states. Their
geopolitical reach is regionally confined. The United States, China, the European Union, Russia,
and Japan are major powers. Iran, Turkey, Australia, and South Africa are representative
examples of regional powers. India and Brazil are at an intermediate stage. While their reach
currently is regional, they have the potential to become major powers. In time, they gain enough
strength and ambition to try to influence affairs throughout their regions by the application of 20

military and/or economic muscle. Examples are Iran‘s actions within Iraq and Ethiopia‘s in
Somalia.

A third order of states has also arisen—those with unique ideological or cultural capacities to
influence their neighbors. Examples include Ethiopia, Cuba, Ukraine, Angola, Chile, Argentina,
Colombia, North Korea, and Malaysia. Oil-rich Qatar also belongs in this category because it
derives influence from supplying military weapons to Sunni groups throughout the Middle East,
especially Syria.

Fourth-order states are generally little capable of applying pressure upon their neighbors.
Fourth-order states such as Sudan, Ecuador, Zambia, Morocco, and Tunisia have impact only on
their nearest neighbors.

Those of the fifth order, such as Nepal, have only marginal external involvement; they depend
upon outside sustenance for survival.

Prepared By: Jemal Seid, October 2019, 2022 Page 20

 1.8.2. Geography and Geopolitics Nexus
According to The Penguin Dictionary of International Relations, geopolitics is ‗a method of
foreign policy analysis which seeks to understand, explain and predict international political
behaviour primarily in terms of geographical variables, such as location, size, climate,
topography, demography, natural resources and technological development and potential
(Mallinson, and Ristic, 2016).

Geography is the study of the features and patterns formed by the interaction of the natural and
human-made environments. An example of a simple feature/pattern relationship is a gorge
straddled by a bridge which forms of a transit way. At a more complex level, the features of a
coastal embayment located at the edge of a broad basin which is rimmed by the escarpment of a
plateau provides the setting for an urban metropolis. Its features, consisting of a port, a dense
central city, and suburbs within the basin, extend onto the plateau as exurbia. Collectively these
features form a pattern.
i. Proximity: The importance of geographic proximity in waging war and conducting trade is
reflected in many ways. US launching pads for drones are placed in Djibouti to strike al-Qaeda
21
in Yemen, and France has developed a similar cite in Niger for its operations against terrorists in
northern Mali. Empty desert landscapes serve as the locale for space exploration bases, as is the
case for Russia‘s Baikonur Cosmodrome in northern Kazakhstan. The US southwest desert is a
prime site for military pilot exercises. America‘s isolation status before 1941 was in response to
its distance from the mainland Europe. Seoul‘s location so close to the North Korean border
influences the cautious diplomatic policies of South Korea toward its erratic northern neighbor.
There are countless examples of how geography affects international relations, but none more
striking than the geographical fact that the United States is the only great power in the world
with access to the two world oceans.

ii. Population: Population density is another important geographic consideration in international

relations. High densities inhibit drone strikes for fear of causing many civilian casualties.
Consequently, such densities provide safe havens for Afghan Taliban leadership in Pakistan‘s
Karachi, with a population of twenty million. Narrow seas, such as the Gulf of Aden, offer
targets for pirates based in Somalian fishing ports. The vast deposits of North Sea oil and gas that

Prepared By: Jemal Seid, October 2019, 2022 Page 21

adjoin the east coast of Scotland encourage Scottish separatists to seek independence from
Britain.

iii .Location: it is the most important single factor in the physical makeup of a State. It is a very
comprehensive term and includes location with respect to latitude and longitude, land and water
bodies as well as location in relation to other States, particularly the more powerful once in
contemporary international politics. Location can be categorized into absolute and relative.
Absolute location is considered as mathematical and astronomical. Astronomical location is
described in terms of latitudes and longitudes. Relative location is described in terms of
relationship with other State.
Location of States in land and water bodies [Land Locked and Water Locked
Status]
This is as one of the most constant concepts in political geography has been concerned with
location in relation to the open-seas. It is the fundamental thought behind the Heartland theory
which may be seen as a special, period bound, example of politico-geographical interpretations
of continental and oceanic relationships, tested by history, time and again.
22
The general belief that landlocked location create serious disadvantages to the concerned state is
correct in many respects; but in a strictly strategic sense, a landlocked position may provide a
nation engaged in war with the advantage of ‗inner line‘ which can be exploited given a system
of good communication, a well-developed system of intelligence, and good armies under able
leadership. In such case, a country can use its interior location to shift troops from one front to
another and thus win victories by local superiority.

Example: Fredrick of Russia, Napoleon, and Bolsheviks during the civil war of the Revolution
made the best use of location factors of interior location which except for the advantages they
offered in war strategy, were highly disadvantageous. Good examples of landlocked countries
are: Central African Republic, Chad, Niger, Ethiopia, Paraguay, Bolivia, and Switzerland. Such
countries are surrounded by other countries and do not have access to outlet and miss water
transport which is the cheapest means of transportation. But, it does not mean that all such
countries are poor because Switzerland is landlocked country who is rich.

Prepared By: Jemal Seid, October 2019, 2022 Page 22

The disadvantages landlocked countries can face are in fact many and numerous. Among them
the most far-reaching is it occupies an isolated position from the other world with respect to trade
and commerce since it is deprived of the opportunities for direct contact with countries with
which it does not share common boundaries. It can be appreciated, therefore, why landlocked
States have been actively trying to acquire free access to the sea. History is full of conflicts
between continental States trying to expand towards the sea and the coastal once trying to block
their plans of access. Example: Russia.

Location of States with respect to other States

This is referred as vicinal location, relative location, and central vs. peripheral location.
Normally, being a neighbor with a State having nearly equal power potential or a weak power is
advantageous since there are few chances of adverse pressure on international frontiers and
friendly relationship can be maintained. This minimizes wasteful expenditure on defense and
makes the scarce resources available for social and economic development. When countries,
which are unlike in size or big and small lie adjacent to each other; the larger and powerful may
dominate the smaller State. Example: Poland is situated between Germany, Russia and the
former Austro-Hungary. This endangered the sovereignty of Poland and Polish nations had 23

remained sovereign political unit for few years. Centrality or accessibility in global context is
defined in terms of landmass, population, and economic activity. A central location tends to
imply growth in commercial relations between States. Example: The North Atlantic is the most
central of all the oceans. This is because it is situated between the two most technologically
advanced areas of the world North Eastern North America and Western Europe with their highly
industrialized and mutually complementary economies. As a result, there is a heavy traffic across
the ocean connecting the two regions. This is sharply contrasted with the peripheral position of
Australia and New Zealand.

Strategic Location of States

Strategic Location is a location that gives to its holder a decisive advantage, militarily, politically
or economically over its opponents. A very high degree of strategic importance is given to
narrow oceanic straits on important highways of commerce such as the Strait of Gibraltar,
connecting the Atlantic and Mediterranean seas, or the Turkish straits of Dardanelles and
Bosporus connecting the Black sea with the Mediterranean via the Sea of Marmara; The last two

Prepared By: Jemal Seid, October 2019, 2022 Page 23

straits control the only direct access for the present day CWIS (Common Wealth of Independent
States) to open seas a factor which had endowed them with great politico-strategic importance
vis-a-vis the former Soviet-Union. Strait of Bab-el Mendeb connects the Meditrrean Sea and
Read Sea while Strait of Hormuz connects the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman. Likewise,
narrow land bridges through which canals are dug to facilitate direct navigation between adjacent
oceanic areas, often assume great strategic advantage. Example: Falkland Islands of Great
Britain of 18th century, Suez Canal, Panama Canal. The strategic value of any given location
must, however, change with changes in the balance of power and technology. While the
importance of Falkland Islands was diminishing, that of Iceland was growing due to the
invention of aircrafts who can pause on Iceland.

A number of states have been deliberately created or maintained for the purpose of separating
two other countries. These are often known as buffer states, and they have played an important
role in modern political geography. Buffer states are small political units located between large
nations. They survive because they separate states that would otherwise be powerful neighbors
and because the attempt to conquer them would be met, not by the relatively weak resistance of
24
the buffer, but by the much stronger opposition of the other neighbor. Thus, the Netherlands,
Belgium, and Luxembourg have survived as buffer between France and Germany; Poland and
the ex-Czechoslovakia, and Rumania, as Buffer between Central Europe and the ex-Soviet
Union. During the 19th century, the British in India feared most the growing power of Czarist
Russia to the North. For this reason, they created or maintained the buffer states of Iran (Persia)
and Afghanistan between the then British territories and Russia. This is not to suggest that these
states existed only by virtue of their role as buffers, but the fact that some powers that want them
to serve as such imbalances their importance and allowed them to acquire more territory than
might otherwise have done.

Iv. Climate Conditions: It really matters since the country‘s climate patterns determine the
amount of food production, food import and export, foreign invasion, population distribution and
so on. Climate conditions ensure either self-sufficiency or dependency on food products. To
mention its defense factors, climate also impacts on the ability of a state to prosecute a war. The
way large number of French and German soldiers froze to death whilst trying to conquer Russia
in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries is an excellent example.

Prepared By: Jemal Seid, October 2019, 2022 Page 24

v. Size of the Country:
The size of countries can be labeled as very small [such as Burundi , Djoibouti, Vatican
City/Holy See/, Lebanon] ;small [such as Netherlands, Liberia, etc]; medium [such as United
Kingdom , Poland, etc ]; large [suh as France , Ethiopia]; and very large [such as Russia,
Canada, etc].

Other things being equal, the larger the State is in size (area), the greater its chances of
supporting its larger population and possessing a diversified resource base; the two most
important elements in political and economic development. In ancient times, almost all States
were small in size. It was possible for the entire population to be integrated into a dynamic whole
that could be tied together effectively towards the achievement of effective economic, social, and
political power only in small sized States. In those times, bigger size was disadvantage, because
quick means of transport and communication was not developed, administering a large area from
a single node of power were difficult. Even today, a large size has proved to be disadvantageous
in the relatively underdeveloped economies, where an effective transport and communication has
been slow to develop. Example: Large sized States of Afro-Asia, Latin America and African
25
countries. From developed countries, Soviet-Union presented an extreme case. Difficulty arises
from extremely far distance from the center to the periphery. However, bigger States have also
the following advantages. These are: such States may have diverse climate, soil, vegetation, and
mineral resources that can be utilized at any time), enables the country to have diversified
potential resources, retreating to trade space for time to win war by building ammunition, train
new troops, and prepare a counter-offensive and enables to have sufficient areas remote from
enemy base and enemy air attack. But, this cannot be always true. Example: Oil endowed
countries are situated only in certain localities like the Middle East. So, having larger country
does not mean being endowed with potential and diversified resources.

Besides advantages, bigger countries may have the following disadvantages. These include: (1)
Difficult to maintain national cohesion, (2) Longer distance from the center to the periphery may
complicate physical, social, political and economic problems, (3) Security and defense difficulty
or enemy invasion, Example: Soviet-Union and Sudan has great physical barrier between north
and south caused by desert and swampy land, (4) Fissiparous and separatist movements may
emerge in the border areas because awareness of local conditions diminishes with distance from

Prepared By: Jemal Seid, October 2019, 2022 Page 25

the capital, so more remote areas require more consultations between regional officials and
decision makers at the center. In order to solve such problems, Federalism is advisable for such
bigger countries. Example: Sudan, Canada, Brazil and etc.

Vi. Shape of the country: Shape may be significant both for defense as well as internal
administration. It has a significant effect on State functioning. Shape of a State ranges from
geometric to irregular. A shape of State has social, economic and political impact on the State.

26

A. Compact State: A state possessing a roughly circular, oval, or rectangular territory in which
the distance from the geometric center to any point on the boundary exhibits little variance (e.g.
Cambodia, Uruguay, Poland). The closer the State‘s shape resembles a circle, the greater is the
ease in binding the State‘s center and periphery into a coherent spatial entity. So, compact shape
can resemble circular, triangular, square, and rectangular. Example is Poland. For internal
political cohesion, a circular shape with the capital in the center should prove to be of the

Prepared By: Jemal Seid, October 2019, 2022 Page 26

greatest advantage. Compact shape of States has the following advantages. These are: (1) has
short boundary, (2) has no peninsula, and highlands, (3) ease of effective control.

A compact shape does not always imply cohesion: Romania, one of the most compact States, has
always had serious minority problems. Very often, a compact shape was achieved at the expense
of including a minority group or by excluding a part of one‘s own people. The western boundary
of Romania which was establishes in 1920 with a view to include a length of railroad, had to
include in that process, a substantial dissident Hungarian minority. In sharp contrast to this is the
situation associated with an elongated, prorupt and fragmented shapes.

B. Elongated State: A state whose territory is decidedly long and narrow in that its length is at
least six times greater than its average width (example Chile, Vietnam, and Norway). Elongated
shape of a State besides adding to difficulties in communication also increases the length of the
international boundary. Chile and Norway may be cited as examples. In such States, length is
greater than width i.e. width can be as large as six times of a width. Example: Europe; Norway,
Sweden and Malawi, Africa; Gambia, Togo and Malawi, S. America; Chile and Panama. Such
shapes are disadvantageous because they pose dichotomy, and are exposed so much. Example: 27
North is considered as European Italy while south Italy is considered by Italians themselves as
underdeveloped.

C. Prorupted State: A state exhibiting a narrow, elongated land extension leading away from
the main body of territory (e.g. Thailand). Prorupt States are also those which are compact but
have peninsula and corridor which can be the point of conflict. Example: Zaire, Kinshasa is

Prepared By: Jemal Seid, October 2019, 2022 Page 27

found in the western part while Shaba rich province (economically backbone) is found in the
southern portion.
Figure 2.4 prorupted States

D. Fragmented State: A state whose territory consists of several separated parts, not a
contiguous whole. The individual parts may be isolated from each other by the land area of other
states or by international waters. Fragmented State is again a non-contiguous or having no
28
common borders. It is consisted of two or more individual parts i.e. internal water. Such states
are disadvantageous in that they are detached; force the government to leave the capital and
makes government control ineffective.

E. Perforated State: A state whose territory completely surrounds that of another state (e.g.
South Africa and Italy).

F. Landlocked and Waterlocked State: reflects a state without access to the sea (e.g.
Zimbabwe), and those surrounded by sea (e.g. Australia) respectively.
G. Exclave: A non-island piece of territory that is part of a particular state but lies separated
from it by the territory of another state (e.g. Alaska)
H. Enclave: A piece of territory that is surrounded by another political unit of which it is not a
part.

Vii. Changes in the natural environment: have profound geopolitical implications. Global
warming has made possible navigation of Russia‘s Arctic Northern Sea Route during the

Prepared By: Jemal Seid, October 2019, 2022 Page 28

summer. With continued global warming, this is likely to evolve into a full-year transit way,
strengthening the economic ties between Europe and China.
Viii Natural Resources: Countries may be of big resources: inter alia Minerals (RSA,
Botswana, Russia, etc), Oil (OPEC and non OPEC Members), Water (Ethiopia, DRC, etc)…. .
Therefore, the kind of resource countries have highly determines their foreign policy and
international relations.

Vix. Topography: Some countries foreign relations are highly conditioned by the topographies
they own. This topographic attribute may help them prevent from or expose for foreign
invasion. Topography matters for agricultural production, infrastructural development,
population patterns, etc. directly or indirectly affecting countries foreign relations. The
physiographic features and patterns of ethnic and religious distribution in both Afghanistan and
Iraq have demonstrated the impact of geography upon war and politics. The Afghan war
continued to rage because the Taliban and al-Qaeda were able to regroup in the sheltering and
welcoming mountainous areas of Pakistan‘s Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) of
fellow Pashtuns when the focus of US attention shifted to Iraq.
29

1.9. Geopolitical Structures, Settings, Forces and Features

1.9.1. Geopolitical Structures
For the most part, geopolitical structures are organized along the following hierarchically
ordered spatial levels:
1. The geostrategic realm—is the most extensive level, or macro level- ―maritimity‖ or
―continentality.‖ In today‘s world, three geostrategic realms have evolved: the Atlantic and
Pacific economically advanced maritime realm; the Eurasian continental Russian heartland; and
the mixed continental-maritime East Asia.
2. The geopolitical region—a subdivision of the realm that represents the middle level, or meso
level. The regions of the maritime realm are North and Middle America, South America,
maritime Europe and the Maghreb, and the Asia-Pacific Rim. Geographically they are framed by
the world‘s two great oceans, the Atlantic and Pacific.

Distinctions between realm and region are distinctions between the strategic and the tactical.
States operate at both regional and realm levels, and sometimes they can maintain ties with two

Prepared By: Jemal Seid, October 2019, 2022 Page 29

regions and/or two realms. For example, Australia is part of the Asia-Pacific Rim. However,
because it belongs also to the maritime realm, it is able to benefit from its ties to the two other
regions of that realm. Strategically, it serves as a crucial link within the maritime world‘s global
network. Culturally, politically, and ethnically it retains its historic British roots as well as its
bonds with the United States forged in World War II.

Shatterbelts
While most geopolitical regions have varying degrees of cohesiveness depending on their stages
of maturity, this is not the case for shatterbelts. Such deeply fragmented regions are global
destabilizers. The concept of the shatterbelt has long held the attention of geographers, who have
also used the terms ―crush zone‖ or ―shatter zone.‖ The operational definition for shatterbelts
used here is strategically oriented regions that are both deeply divided internally and caught up
in the competition between great powers of the geostrategic realms. By the end of the 1940s, two
such highly fragmented regions had emerged—the Middle East and Southeast Asia. Sub-Saharan
Africa has reemerged as an atomized shatterbelt region. Not all areas in turmoil are shatterbelts.
Shatterbelts and their boundaries are fluid.
30
3. The lowest level, or micro level: National states, highly autonomous regions, quasi states,
and territorial subdivisions within and across states. In modern times, the linchpin of the world
geopolitical system has been the national state. Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri advance the
thesis that supranational, not national, powers rule today‘s global system. In reality, however,
globalization is not an independent force. The geopolitical viewpoint of this volume differs
markedly from the notion of an emerging world system of globalization.

Gateway States and Regions

Gateway states play a novel role in linking different parts of the world by facilitating the
exchange of peoples, goods, and ideas. The characteristics of gateway states vary in detail but
not in the overall context of their strategic economic locations or in the adaptability of their
inhabitants to economic opportunities. Among today‘s most prominent gateways are Singapore,
Hong Kong, Monaco, Finland, Bahrain, Dubai, Qatar, Djibouti, Trinidad, and the Bahamas. The
emergence of gateways helps to convert former barrier boundaries to borders of accommodation.
Gateways, for the most part, play positive economic or social roles. Some, however, may be

Prepared By: Jemal Seid, October 2019, 2022 Page 30

more problematic. For example, Spain‘s Canary Islands (migration); Turkmenistan and
Uzbekistan (drugs).The concept of gateway regions is a logical extension of the gateway state
concept. Such regions do not yet exist.
Linchpin States
As per Cambridge dictionary, linchpin is the most important member of a group or part of
a system, that holds together the other members or parts or makes it possible for them
to operate as intended. Contextually, the designated linchpins were Germany, Poland, Iran or
Pakistan-Afghanistan, South Korea, and the Philippines. Their dominance by the USA would
effectively contain the Russian 'Imperial' power, protecting Europe and Japan and, in the case of
South Korea and the Philippines, preventing encirclement by China.

1.9.2. Geographical Settings

The earth‘s two major physical/human geographical settings are the maritime and the
continental. These settings provide the arenas for the development of distinctive geopolitical
structures. The civilizations, cultures, and political institutions that have evolved within these
two settings are fundamentally different in their economies, human cultures and traditions, spirit,
and geopolitical outlooks.
31
Maritime settings: are exposed to the open sea, either from coastal reaches or from inland areas
with access to the seas. The vast majority of peoples who live there have benefited from climates
with moderate temperatures and adequate rainfall and ease of contact with other parts of the
world, often behind the protective screen of inland physical barriers. Sea trade and immigration
have flourished in such settings, contributing to the diversity of their peoples in terms of race,
culture, and language. They have also sped up the process of economic specialization. The
trading and other systems of exchange that have emerged from this specialization have had open,
politically liberalizing effects. Of the world‘s major and regional powers, only the United States
has direct access to the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans and the Caribbean Sea. Much of its interior
is linked to these waters by the Great Lakes and the Mississippi and Missouri inland waterway
systems.

Continental settings: are characterized by extreme climates and vast distances from the open
seas. Such settings often suffer from lack of intensive interaction with other parts of the world
because of the barrier effects of mountains, deserts, and high plateaus or because of sheer
distance. Historically, their economies have been more self-sufficient than maritime ones, while

Prepared By: Jemal Seid, October 2019, 2022 Page 31

their political systems, more isolated from new influences and ideas, tend to develop as closed
and autocratic. Urbanization and industrialization have come much later to the continental arena
than to the maritime one. The lag continues in the present postindustrial age. While maritime
areas have forged ahead by generating and diffusing high-technology innovations, many
continental areas remain heavily rural or are characterized by aging industrial bases that drag
down the economies of their urban areas.

1.9.3. Geopolitical Forces

Geopolitical structures are shaped by two forces—the centrifugal and the centripetal. At the
national level, both are linked to the psychobiological sense of territoriality. The centrifugal
force is the drive for political separation that motivates a people to seek territorial separation
from those whom they consider outsiders, who might impose different political systems,
languages, cultures, or religions upon them. In this context, space with clear boundaries serves as
a defining and a defensive mechanism. The centripetal force promotes the drive for political unity
that is reinforced by a people‘s sense of being inextricably linked to a particular territory. Such
territoriality is expressed through symbolic as well as physical ties of a people to a particular
32
land. While drives for separation and unity are intertwined, they are not always in balance.

1.9.4. Geopolitical Features

Despite variations in function and scale, all structures have certain geopolitical features in
common:
Historic or Nuclear Cores: These are the areas in which states originate and out of which the
state idea has developed. The relationship between the physical environment of the core and the
political-cultural system that evolves may become embedded and persist as an important element
of national or regional identity and ideology.
Capitals or Political Centers: Capitals serve as the political and symbolic focus of activities that
govern the behavior of people in politically defined territories. While its functions may be
essentially administrative, the built landscape of a national capital—its architectural forms,
buildings, monuments, and layout—has considerable symbolic value in mobilizing support for
the state. Capitals may be selected for a variety of reasons—for their geographic centrality to the
rest of the national space, for the defensive qualities of their sites, or for their frontier locations,
either as defensive points or springboards for territorial acquisition.

Prepared By: Jemal Seid, October 2019, 2022 Page 32

Ecumenes: These are the areas of greatest density of population and economic activity. It has
traditionally been created and expanded by dense transportation networks to reflect economic
concentration. In today‘s postindustrial information age, the boundaries of ecumenes can be
expanded to include areas that are linked by modern telecommunications, and therefore
ecumenes are less tied to transportation clustering. Because the ecumene is the most advanced
portion of the state economically as well as its most populous sector, it is usually the state‘s most
important political area.
Effective National Territory (ENT) and Effective Regional Territory (ERT): These are
moderately populated areas with favorable resource bases. As areas of high development
potential, they provide outlets for population growth and dispersion and for economic expansion.
Their extent is an indication of future strength, especially when they are contiguous to the
ecumene.
Empty Areas: These are essentially devoid of population, with little prospect for mass human
settlement. Depending on their location and extent, they may provide defensive depth and sites
for weapons testing. Some are important as sources of minerals and for tourism.
Boundaries: These mark off political areas. While they are linear, they often occur within 33
broader border zones. Their demarcation may become a source of conflict.
Nonconforming Sectors: These may include minority separatist areas within states and isolated
or ―rogue‖ states within regions. In many cases, these minority areas are concentrated at the
periphery of the country, far removed from the economic advantages provided within the
ecumene and parts of the ENT. Even where such areas possess riches of natural resources, their
fruits tend to flow to the national center.

1.9.5. Main Features of Geopolitical Thinking

Geopolitics, as the common and at the same time extremely important term, is currently used in
the mass media and many popular and scientific publications. The initial meaning of the
discussed term indicates the dependency between the geographical space and politics. However,
this is only one of the features characterizing the geopolitical attitude. Till today, we can state
that there exist five fundamental rules belonging to geopolitics and characterizing the
understanding of the geopolitical par excellence. Let‘s look at them briefly.

Prepared By: Jemal Seid, October 2019, 2022 Page 33

 1. Great Space

The most characteristic for geopolitics and broadly recognized attribute is the consideration of
each political reality in multidimensional categories. Space in the geopolitical understanding has
the polyphonic and multidimensional nature, it is also multi-valued. Next to its geographical
dimension, geopolitics also take into consideration in their studies and analyses the astropolitical
and infospatioal element. In this context, the ―geo‖ prefix is only the symbolic grasp of the space,
which is understood broadly and multidimensionaly. Unlike the geographers, geopoliticians
strongly value the space. Geopoliticians mark regions, macroregions, panregions, critical points,
buffers, keystones and bolts on maps. All these categories have the valuating meaning, from the
point of view of controlling the Earth. Geographers describe the Earth and its features as staticm
while geopolitics notices the dynamics of the space. In this relation, geopolitics is included in the
political sciences.

2. Long time

Geopolitical thinking has the long-term character. The goal of such view is to grasp the most
34
important historical processes. This allows to outline the main cyclical cycle in history. It gives
the possibility to fully determine the causes and results of the creation and fall of empires,
powers, and political-military blocks. From this perspective, the single events almost do not
matter. The essence of geopolitics is orientation to the future. Geopolitics – unlike the political
geography – does not concentrate on the present. There is no present, there is only past and
future Such a term does not exist. From the geopolitical point of view, there is no static
international system. Geopolitics examines the genesis of international most local ones, with the
global context where examinations are characterized by thinking in the continental scale. Space
in the geopolitical understanding has the polyphonic and multidimensional nature, it is also
multi-valued.

3. Proccess

Geopolitics has processual attitudes. Geopoliticians do not concentrate on single events

(phenomena), because – in the long lasting categories – they almost do not matter. A geopolitician
cannot be the ―hostage of current events‖. Geopolitical studies are not the result of single
observations of events and political decisions; they are not the resultant of utterances of such or

Prepared By: Jemal Seid, October 2019, 2022 Page 34

other politicians. It is a domain of other sciences on politics and diplomacy. Geopolitics is
interested most of all in processes, trends, cycles, cause and effect relations, trade cycles.
Geopolitics assumes the timelessness of the influence of the spatial factors on the sphere of the
global politics and the essence of relations between centres of power. Geopoliticians analyse the
political form of life through the polyphonic and kaleidoscopic optics.

4. Asymmetry

One of the key tasks of geopolitics is grasping the main vectors of the power system in space.
Geopolitics – unlike the international law – does not treat the countries and international
organizations in egalitarian categories. On the contrary, it sets the strict hierarchy. Unlike the
political geography, geopolitics omits in its imaging the marginal countries, which do not count
in the given system of powers. However, it exhibits the significant players, at the same time
applying the strict gradation. It also underlines the areas and directions of confrontation.
Geopoliticians in their examinations and studies concentrate on grasping not only the countries,
but most of all the centres of power.

35
5. Realism

Geopolitical understanding always has the character of the realistic look. This approach assumes
the rejection of any doctrinal or ideological axioms. It is often connected with the omission of
ethical aspects in politics (rejection of axiology), or the consideration of separate ethical
conventions connected with the sphere of politics. We should remember that, in the geopolitical
understanding, space is amoral, so it is subjected to any tribunal.

1.10. Geopolitics and General Systems

Combining organismic concepts from Herbert Spencer, sociologist, with those of Heinz Werner,
psychologist, and Ludwig von Bertalanffy, psychobiologist, provides the foundations for a
spatially structured geopolitical theory. Adapting this developmental principle to geopolitical
structures, the system works through the following points.

The earliest is undifferentiated or atomized. Here, as in feudalism, none of the territorial parts
are interconnected, and their functions are identical. The next stage is differentiation, when parts
have distinguishable characteristics but are still isolated. The post-Westphalian states in Europe

Prepared By: Jemal Seid, October 2019, 2022 Page 35

or the postcolonial states of the 1950s through the 1970s all sought to be self-sufficient and to
mirror one another. The next stage is specialization, which is followed by specialized
integration. In this last stage, exchange of the complementary outputs of the different territorial
parts leads to an integration of the system. The parts of the system are hierarchically ordered,
increasing its efficiency, as one level fulfills certain functions but leaves other functions to units
belonging to different levels. What helps to bring balance to the system is the drive of less
mature parts to rise to higher levels. Currently, the world geopolitical regions operate at the
following stages:
i. Atomization—Sub-Saharan Africa
ii. Undifferentiation—Trans-Caucasus-Central Asia, Indochina; and
iii. Differentiation—heartlandic Russia, East Asia, the MEA, South America, South Asia;
iv. Specialization—North and Middle America, Asia-Pacific Rim;
v. Specialized integration—maritime Europe and the Maghreb;

1.11. Critics of Geopolitics

Geopolitics, as an intellectual field, enjoys a mixed reputation. Lionized by some as an insightful 36
guide into the geographical study of strategic relations between states, it has been castigated by
others for being an accomplice of authoritarianism and fascism. For the American geographer,
Richard Hartshorne, it was an intellectual poison and thus best avoided for the scholarly health of
the unwary (Dodds, Kuus, and Sharp, n.d).

It was undoubtedly a combination of imperialist ambition and a geopolitical mentality that led to
the (mis)drawing of many of the world‘s current borders. An obvious example is the secret
Sykes-Picot agreement of 1916, which led to all manner of future tensions and wars in the
Middle East, which continue to this day. Needless to say, oil interests came to the forefront, and
the Gulf States of today can be seen as Sykes‘ and Picot‘s children, just as the mistimed and
clumsily implemented creation of the State of Israel can. Another example is the partition of
India, which led to the killings of up to a million people, and mass migration, on the part of
Hindus, Sikhs and Moslems. Today, the Kashmir problem is the sting in the tail of the
geopolitical mentality. It is thus hardly surprising that some of the most respected experts in
international relations are caustic about geopolitics. Christopher Hill, for example, describes it as

Prepared By: Jemal Seid, October 2019, 2022 Page 36

‗a primitive form of International Relations theory‘, while Ó Tuathail reduces it to the level of
being ‗about contested claims to knowledge‘ (Mallinson, and Ristic, 2016).

The US-led attacks on Iraq and Libya, and the attempt to attack Syria, the latter thwarted only by
incisive action by Russia. Unfortunately for many, geopolitics still seems to be all the rage. Thus
the West‘s attempt to attack Syria was simply a continuation of politics by other means (to coin a
phrase from von Clausewitz), or, more fashionably put, an attempt to apply geostrategy. Saudi
Arabia, for example, which regularly beheads men and women (in public, into the bargain) and
forbids women from even driving, is a child of the Sykes-Picot agreement. The fact that the
closeness of this country to the West can be explained geopolitically (thanks to oil or, as we call
it, black blood) demonstrates that geopolitics today has little to do with people. According to
Colatrella (2017), the causes of world war 3 in the 21st century will be class, geopolitics and
hegemony.

References
Agnew, J. (2003). Geopolitics: Re-visioning World Politics (2nd Ed). Published in the Taylor &
Francis e-Library 37
Cohen, S,. B. (2015). Geopolitics: The Geography of International Relations (3rd Ed). Published
by Rowman & Littlefield.
Colatrella, S (2017). The causes of world war 3: Class, geopolitics and hegemony in the 21st
century.
Dodds, K, Kuus, M., and Sharp, J. (n.d). Introduction: Geopolitics and its Critics.
Dodds, K. (2007). Geopolitics: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press.
Goitom S., and Goitom T. (2013). Political Geography (GeES 432). Module
Prepared For Summer Program Students. Wollo University: Unpublished.
Gökmen, S., R. (2010). Geopolitics and the Study of International Relations. A Thesis
Submitted to the Graduate School of Social Sciences of Middle East Technical University
Griffiths, M., and O'Callaghan, T., and Roach, S., C. (2008). International Relations: The Key
Concepts. (Second Ed). Published in Taylo and Francis e-Library.
Leonard, M. (2015). Geo-economics: Seven Challenges to Globalization.
Mallinson, W., and Ristic, Z. (2016).The Threat of Geopolitics to International Relations:
Obsession with the Heartland. Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Søilen, K., S. (2010). The Shift from Geopolitics to Geoeconomics and the Failure of our
Modern Social Sciences. TELOS Conference - From Lifeworld to Biopolitics: Empire in
the Age of Obama.
Sykulski, L. (2013). Geopolitics and the Political Geography – Similarities and Differences.
Geopolitics: Grounded in the Past, Geared Toward the Future. Poland University, Poland.
Tuathail, G., Dalby, S., and Routledge, P, (1998). The Geopolitics Reader.

Prepared By: Jemal Seid, October 2019, 2022 Page 37