What is Geopolitics and Why Does It Matter?

Key Concepts

• Geopolitics: A perspective on international affairs anchored in history, geography, and culture.
• Heartland: Mackinder's concept of the central landmass of Eurasia, control of which was seen as key to world power.
• Sea Power: Mahan's theory that control of the seas is crucial for a state's rise to world power.
• Realism: A school of thought in international relations emphasizing competition between states, power, and national interest.
• Single Factor Fallacy: The error of attributing complex phenomena to a single cause.
• Moral Solidarity: The shared values and beliefs that unite a community and give meaning to its power.
• Reductionism: Oversimplifying complex issues by focusing on a single factor or explanation.

What is Geopolitics?

Geopolitics offers a perspective on contemporary international affairs grounded in history, geography, and culture. It emphasizes understanding the "realities and mentalities of the localities." This approach aims to illuminate the long-term forces at play in the world, recognizing that current crises are rooted in historical legacies, local cultures, and geographical realities. Geopolitical analysis begins with a map but goes beyond it to provide insights into the complexities of the world.

Historical Roots of Geopolitics

The concept of geopolitics emerged between 1880 and 1910, an era of "big think" characterized by attempts to find a single explanation for world history. This period saw the rise of Marxism and works like Brooks Adams's "The Law of Civilization and Decay" and Oswald Spengler's "The Decline of the West," all seeking a systemic understanding of human development.

Mahan and Sea Power

Alfred Thayer Mahan's "The Influence of Sea Power on History, 1660-1783" (1890) argued that Britain's rise to power was due to its control of the seas. This appealed to Anglo-American elites and Kaiser Wilhelm II, who placed the book on every German warship. Mahan believed that a state's ability to support and interdict commerce was crucial for success.

Mackinder and the Heartland

Halford Mackinder challenged Mahan in his 1904 paper "The Geographical Pivot of History." He argued that industrialization made control of inland resources more important than sea power. Mackinder focused on Eurasia, the "heartland," as the key to world power. This idea appealed to Germans who dreamed of "Mitteleuropa" (Central Europe) as the basis for a larger empire.

Househofer and Nazi Geopolitics

Karl Haushofer, a Munich professor, developed lectures on "geopolitik" that influenced Rudolf Hess and Adolf Hitler. Haushofer's ideas, combined with the concept of "Lebensraum" (living space) in the East, lent intellectual cache to the Nazi program of expansion and genocide. While the extent of Haushofer's influence is debated, his writings became a subject of concern.

Strauss-Hupé and the Counter to German Geopolitics

Robert Strauss-Hupé wrote "Geopolitics: The Struggle for Space and Power" (1942) as a counter to German geopolitics. He recognized the danger of Haushofer's ideas but accepted the importance of his premises. Strauss-Hupé argued that the Germans had developed geopolitics as a new approach focused on conquest and domination of a vast, economically independent space, disregarding traditional state boundaries. He foresaw a world divided into power blocs and warned that there could be no stable world order, only everlasting struggle. He urged the United States to organize a counter-struggle with Britain and France to push back the threat of world domination.

Geopolitics and the Cold War

Strauss-Hupé's geographical focus allowed him to transition from World War II to the Cold War. The Soviet Union, controlling a large part of Mackinder's heartland, was seen as a threat requiring an American response. Strauss-Hupé founded the Foreign Policy Research Institute (FPRI) in 1955 to promote a sustained American commitment to building and leading an Atlantic Community.

Criticisms of Geopolitics

FPRI faced criticisms for an overly hawkish and pessimistic approach to world affairs, particularly during the Vietnam War. Some critics blamed the geopolitical focus itself for perpetuating the idea that peace was an illusion and conflict was constant.

The Historian vs. Political Scientist Debate

The lecture delves into the conflict between historians and political scientists over the study of international relations. Historians emphasize the specific and particular, while political scientists seek to create models for understanding international relations. The speaker argues for a historically informed theory that acknowledges the uncertainties of the future and emphasizes humility.

Realism vs. Geopolitics

Realism, as a school of thought, emphasizes competition between states, power, and national interest. Realists often focus on the commonalities between states, treating domestic arrangements as fig leaves for their real interests. However, realism can be blind to the different motivations behind states and can lead to contempt for domestic political interests.

Strauss-Hupé questioned whether power in the abstract made sense as an organizing principle. He argued that power only made sense within the context of a society's values and intentions. He rejected philosophies that shun metaphysics and place too much emphasis on efficiency.

Strauss-Hupé's Vision for a Western Community

Strauss-Hupé saw power as a confederal project in which Western states overcame their national divisions to defend their values. He was skeptical of nationalism and argued for a Western Community of Nations led by the United States. He also saw value in European integration as a complement to American security.

Geopolitics and Ukraine

A purely realist perspective might see Russian policy in Ukraine as a natural extension of a great power's sphere of influence. However, a geopolitical perspective would also consider the regional historical tensions between Russia and Ukraine, as well as American commitments and values.

The Role of Geography

While geography is an essential component of geopolitics, there is a danger in assuming permanence and inevitability. A focus on geography alone leaves out important considerations about the nature of the states in question and their relations with each other.

Conclusion

The greatest constant in international affairs is human folly and weakness. However, positive change is possible. Any approach to international relations that suggests permanence or inevitability is refuted by human experience. The challenge is to overcome the desire for quick, neat, plausible, and wrong responses and to seek understanding. FPRI's contribution to geopolitics is to instruct and discuss rather than simply categorize and assert. Thinking must come before decisions, and decisions before actions. A wise person understands that possessing a variety of tools is better than relying on only one.