C3. Main schools of geopolitical thought in the modern world economy 1.

Introduction Throughout history, authors from all over the world have identified and described the relationships between power, territory, conflict and location. Concepts relevant to geopolitical thought can be found in the writings of Aristotle, Confucius, Machiavelli and many other ancient and medieval authors. But the formal study of geopolitics began in the late 19th century with the end of the Age of Exploration. By that time, the European powers had explored and begun to establish colonies in all the inhabited parts of the world. The modern world economy is characterized by capitalism, global economic interdependence and political fragmentation. The world economy as we understand it today began to emerge in Western Europe at the time of the Renaissance. As the world economy developed, the concept of a nation-state began to emerge. Nation-states were delimited territorially, and they linked cultures and ethnic groups to specific political units. By the end of the Middle Ages, many of todays major European nation-states, including England, France, Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands, and the Scandinavian countries, had already come into existence. At the same time that modern nation-states began to emerge, their economies became increasingly interdependent. Since that time, the modern world economy has expanded to encompass the entire world civilization. The modern world system stands in contrast to two previously recognized modes of international economic organization. These include minisystems and world empires. A mini-system is a small, isolated society that lacks permanent trade relationships with other societies. Typically, tribal groups in various pre-industrial societies such as the aborigines of Australia, pre-Columbian American Indians and similar societies elsewhere in the world are considered mini-systems although contemporary archeological evidence indicates that trade relationships among the primitive societies were far more complex and sophisticated than would be typical of a mini-system in theory. For example, archeologists have discovered artifacts manufactured by the Mayans of Central America in sites in the present-day eastern and central United States; in other words, clear evidence that a sophisticated system of trade relationships existed among indigenous Native American cultures long before of arrival of European settlers. World empires were political entities that achieved economic, military and political domination of large territories comprising many distinct

nations. The Roman Empire, the Aztecs and the Incas of the Americas, the Babylonians and Assyrians of the Ancient Middle East, and the various dynasties of ancient and medieval China are examples of world empires. As world empires expanded, they eventually became unstable. The collection of tribute (food, tax revenues, capital and labor) over larger and larger areas required an increased bureaucracy as well as a larger and larger military establishment to enforce payment of tribute. As expansion continued, the costs of defending expanded borders became prohibitive, and eventually the world empire would collapse of its own weight. The concept of a world empire is illustrated through examination of the Roman Empire, which began as a modest city-state in the vicinity of modern-day Rome. Over several centuries Rome began to conquer neighboring city-states, and by 300 BC it had become dominant over much of modern-day peninsular Italy. Romes victory over Carthage in the Punic Wars gave to the Roman Empire undisputed control over the central Mediterranean. By the time of Christ, the Romans had expanded throughout Europe and the Middle East and into Africa and western Asia. In time, however, the Roman state began to weaken. Germanic tribes began to rebel against Roman domination. The empire began to decline at first gradually and then more rapidly, before AD 500, the Roman Empire had collapsed completely. 2. The dawn of modern geopolitics By 1900, the task of mapping and exploring the earth and its resources had largely been completed. All of the inhabitable or commercially valuable parts of the world had been divided into formal colonies controlled directly by the European powers as in Africa, or into less formal spheres of influence, which were nevertheless subject to European economic and political control as in East Asia. Because the Age of Exploration had now passed into history, no longer could the European powers expand their resource bases through the incorporation of additional colonies outside Europe. Increasingly, the arena of conflict moved from outside Europe to Europe itself. It is no coincidence that the late 19th century, a time in which the earths resources had been surveyed and the incorporation of the entire world into the European-dominated world economy had been completed, was the period in which formal geopolitical thinking emerged in Europe. During the late 19th and early 20th centuries, distinct schools of thought emerged in many different countries. In large measure, the geopolitical views were closely intertwined with the foreign policy goals of the country of origin. Common to each approach, however, was a concern with large-scale, systematic generalization along with particular emphasis

on the role of the scholars home country within the developing and everchanging world political order. British geopolitics Britain became the dominant power within the world economy during the 18th century and it maintained this domination during the 19th. Its power depended basically on the control of the seas. The location of Great Britain on an island off the mainland of Europe had been a stimulus for maritime activities, and the British Navy was far stronger than its European counterparts. British maritime power was seen to balance the larger populations and continental resources of Central Europe, especially Germany and Russia. British concern with continental domination of the world order was summarized by the well known words of Sir Halford Mackinder (1961-1947), the leading geopolitical thinker in Britain during the early 20th century. He promoted imperialist ideas, analyzing mainly the ways to maintain the integrity of the British Empire and the threats to its hegemon position in the world. Mackinder summarized his view of geopolitics, as follows: -Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland; -who rules the Heartland commands the World islands; -who commands the world island commands the world. By the Heartland, Mackinder meant the core of the Eurasian continent, including Germany, Eastern Europe and European Russia. Control of the Heartland, in Mackinders view, implied control of the World island, i.e. the great landmass of Europe, Asia and Africa. The Heartland was considered to be the pivot of history because of its central location, size, morphology and resource abundance. In his view, power originated in the Heartland and was expressed in recurrent expansionist tendencies of the rulers of the Heartland. Relative location allowed expansion in all directions, while the Heartland itself was protected from attacks by sea. In addition, as Napoleons failed efforts in 1812 had illustrated, even by land it was extremely difficult to destroy the Heartland powers. How could the British balance the potential threat of continental dominance in the world island? Mackinder regarded world history in terms of recurring conflict between land-based and sea-based powers. During the Age of Exploration, technological advances in shipping and naval activities along with European emphasis on colonialism and overseas expansion had turned the balance of power in favor of the seabased powers. By the end of the 19th century the Age of Exploration was coming to an end. The development of the railroad, the internal combustion engine, and other technologies facilitating land-based transportation and communication were seen by Mackinder as factors shifting the balance of power toward the land-based powers. The

heartland, secure from maritime attack and with access to heavily populated and resource-rich areas of China, India and the Middle East as well as the Western Europe, was the natural center of land power. Historically, the Russian Empire had been best situated to control the Heartland. But, at the end of the 19th century, Mackinder recognised that Germany is better placed rather than the weaker Czarist state of Russia, at the center of the Heartland. On these grounds, Mackinder argued that it was necessary for Britain to dominate the worlds oceans as a check on possible German expansion. Hence, Mackinder argued that Britain should control the Rimland, or those areas of the world on and near the worlds oceans. Allied victory in WWI in which the sea-based powers of Britain and the United States vanquished the land-based power of Germany and her allies, seemed to prove that Mackinder projections were right. Yet Mackinder argued that Germany despite its defeat in WWI, could again rise into a world power through control of the continental resources of the Heartland. As well, Mackinder stressed the importance of preventing a political or military alliance between Germany and Russia. All along the 19th century and the first half of the 20th century, Britain had made efforts to prevent an alliance between Russia and Germany. Just before the end of the WWII, Mackinder suggested an alliance (recognizing the decline of British power) between Great Britain, the United States, France and the Soviet Union with the purpose of frustrating any future German attempt to control the Heartland. Although, the heartland term continues to play a central role in many strategic analyses, Mackinders theory has been criticized on the basis of its geographical determinism and has been judged outdated because of the deployment of long-range nuclear weapons, which have rendered the inner reaches of the Heartland as vulnerable as other parts of the globe.