Political Geography. Discussion Posts

Module 2: In 1904, H.J. Mackinder establishes the balance of political power, held constant, is the result of geographical conditions, being economic or political, and on the other, "the relative number of, virility, equipment, and organization of competing peoples." (437) With this frame of thinking, states' foreign policies place a focus on strategic competition in terms of military posture. This establishment in thinking of international relations as a constant potential for conflict needs a rationalization for intervention. This rationalization comes from Kaplan, who views the United States' role in the global order to effectively establish hegemony supported by American exceptionalism. (Kearns 201) The texts make the argument that American exceptionalism is applied to neo-imperialist efforts, under a guise of "democratization", a representation of Kaplan's "paradoxical pursuit of foreign intervention." (Kearns 200) An example of this neo-imperialism was the United States' establishment of "client states" with the establishment of military bases globally. (Jones et al., 140) All three texts build on the arguments relating to the role of the balance of political power and how the world order contributes to an American justification for foreign intervention to ensure global stability. Q: In what conflicts of the past or present could the use of force not be a policy choice, but as a necessity? (Kearns 200) ● Q: Taking this week’s course material into consideration, is America sea (maritime) or land power? Is it possible for a country to be both sea and land power (think about China and the Belt and Road Initiative)? ○ Referring to your second question, the US could be argued as either a maritime or land power. In my opinion, the US maritime influence is unrivaled by other US commands or other global naval capacities. Maritime power by the US can display a forward presence to aid allies or act as a deterrence mechanism against adversaries by strategically placing arms to discourage adversaries. Referring to China, it is possible for a state to be both a maritime and land power, but I would argue with the example of China, they've exponentially grown their naval capacity in recent years over disputes in the South China Seas and other maritime-related topics. The Chinese Belt and Road initiative, in my opinion, is less a military or land power decision, but one of strategic influence of the Chinese government to influence countries such as Iran in the Belt and Road Initiative, and even invest in states in Africa and Latin America. ● Q: Whether you agree with him or not, do you think Mackinder's contributions to the field of political geography still affect international policy today, and will continue to do so into the foreseeable future? For example, how does the Russia/Ukraine situation reflect twentieth century geopolitical thinking? ○ Mackinder's influence on international politics today is undeniable. Looking to tensions in Ukraine, Mackinder's theory of a "pivot area" in Euroasia could be exemplified by Russian aggression in past years including their push into Georgia in 2008, previous invasion of Ukraine in 2014, and even their proxy warfare in Syria. Arguably, in a Mackinder view, all of these conflicts could be to take control of Eurasia and that sphere of influence. Mackinder also believed that geography, not economic power, was the fundamental determinant of world influence and power. Using this metric, Russia by the location and access of its physical location fills an influential global role. Module 3: Glassman (2005) argues political geographers constructed a homogenous geographic imaginary of “Southeast Asia” during the Cold War to present a regional argument to counter Chinese communism and aggression. By reframing the region to be two, distinct classifications of states, Glassman states “they [geographers] nonetheless helped legitimize US interventions in Thailand and elsewhere in Southeast Asia—in the name of protecting Southeast Asia from an external communist Other.” (786) In this capacity, it is essential to note that Southeast Asia was not created as a regional identity, but more so as a relative identity, only dependent on the geopolitical relations in which it occupies. (790) This relativity relating to geopolitical value connects to McNamara's thoughts relating to nationalistic identities and collective "othering" in the film "In the Fog of War". As a means to stop the "domino effect" of communism in the region, differentiating the two regions seemingly could have established an "us and them" mentality both in Southeast Asia and the US against regional powers. The "cartographic convenience" as Glassman describes was formed as a geopolitical entity which was formed "by forces much more substantive than merely its own internal political weakness and need for collective security." (801) Thus revealing the motivation in the US view, establishing regional security in Southeast Asia through both military and economic endeavors to combat the spread of communism. Q: Was the geographical construction of Southeast Asia successful in stopping the spread of communism? Weighing of course the Vietnam War and Cambodian Genocide, does this construction prevent any other conflicts or potential for communism in the region? ● Q: Do you feel that war is waged on a reaction due to ignorance about the people? ○ I enjoyed reading your post and thoughts on this week's course materials. Responding to your question, I do not believe conflict ensues only because of a lack of knowledge or understanding about those whom the conflict is with. In the three weeks of this course alone, we've seen that political geographies and geopolitics can often guide where and why states conflict at different points of past and current situations. Referencing the McNamara film, the US did not launch its military campaign in Vietnam against the Viet Minh because of ignorance about the Vietnamese, but instead because of Vietnam's regional importance in the campaign against the spread of communism. Module 4: This week's readings shared a similar trend in denoting the West vs. the Global East/Orientalist/other and its political geographical origins depicted as a Cold War relic, but a lens which shapes the thoughts of political geographers and affects foreign policy today. Said's work upholds this idea, with 'othering' being a key component of imperialism and global domination, by denoting differences between the periphery and core states, imperialists and colonizers could more easily justify intervention. (Jones et al., 142) Tuathail/Agnew argue that presenting regions as not being of the West or as orientalist is geographical abstractionism, which in short, over simplifies that widely diverse cultures and existences of people outside the West (202). Dodd's analysis of James Bond films exemplifies this dichotomy, apparent in Bond's classic villains like Dr. No and Rosa Klebb (From Russia with Love) as well as modern Bond villains including Oddjob (Goldeneye), Zao (Die Another Day), and even arguably with SPECTRE's Safin in the latest film, No Time to Die. SPECTRE, a broad network of global extremists, according to Dodds "is part of the adversarial formula of shadowy networks and evil geniuses [that] also relied on developing a series of racial geographies of danger." (282) Popular representations of Cold War mentalities take shape in other forms, such as children's toys as explained by Woodyer/Carter, and in particular, the institutionalized constructions of these divides to children. (1061) This theme in their readings from this week reminds me of David Kilcullen's The Dragons and the Snakes: How the Rest Learned to Fight the West, which touches on this topic, with the base notion that the US defeated a dragon with the defeat of the USSR, but in its wake faces numerous snakes instead, such as the ongoing conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq at the time. Kilcullen partakes in deconstructive political geography in his examination of how "the rest" concept was constructed in this post-Soviet era. Q: The Cold War on paper ends in 1989. With tensions remaining between the US and Russia (as well as other communist/socialist powers) and the domino theory, which could be argued, still influences foreign policy, is the Cold War dichotomy still the foundation basis of foreign policy? Or is it more so centered on the conflicts between free-markets/liberalism and communism/socialism? Are the two inseparable in understanding modern foreign policy? STAR WARS: Although not directly based on the regional and political geographies on Earth, Star Wars can influence understandings of geopolitics through different mediums via different planets, human and non-human interactions, and arguably the same portrayals of democracy vs. authoritarianism. The Empire (OG Trilogy) embodies the geography of empire. They control numerous planetary regions and control areas which distribute resources gathered from larger regions. In this process, the Empire often extracts resources from various planets, often leaving behind uninhabitable regions for the indigenous populations. An example of this could be the Wookies (Chewbacca) who are forced from their home planet and into slavery to mine natural resources under the Empire. Another example of this would be the Ewoks on Endor, who are perceived to be simplistic or backwards by the Empire's imperial standards despite their advanced culture. Nonetheless, because their society doesn't represent that of the Empire, their planet is regarded as uninhabited. Thinking about the prequels, the argument could be made that Darth Sideous's (the Emperor) with his putsch of sorts in the Senate ("I am the senate...") vs. the rebels consisting of the Skywalkers and the future republic represents the Earthly struggle of free-markets/democracy against authoritarian governments which presumably don't have free-markets, as evidenced later on by the stringent requirements for Han Solo's smuggling of a key natural resource and the authoritative nature of the imperial regime. It's interesting to note that the Original Trilogy of Star Wars ran from 1977-1983. Could Cold War discourse have influenced the film? DUNE: An example that came to me, given the recent movie release, is Frank Herbert's Dune. The first novel was published in 1965, which undoubtedly impacted the novel's rich political metaphors and representations of issues of the time. Underlying the entire novel is a Cold War mentality, but it's interesting to note the novel was written just after the Korean War and prior to Vietnam. A very basic plot summary (no spoilers!): The novel follows the house Atreides, who are called to leave their home planet to travel to remote Arrakis to collect a necessary resource for space travel, spice. On Arrakis, the local indigenous population, the Fremen, frequently experienced violence in the past from a different ruling house. The novel(s) follow a protagonist from the Atreides family in navigating political challenges and the "unexplored" planet. The novel is a dialogue about imperialism and extractionism, particularly in the Middle East, as well as socio-enviromental relations the Fremen have with water and the spice (oil) which is being extracted. By 1965, major oil explorations in Iraq had been common for more than thirty years and strongly impacted Herbert's novel when examining the oil crisis and subsequent revolution. Herbert drew from Middle Eastern culture as in the depictions of characters as well, especially with the Fremen people who are inspired by the Bedouin. This representation is shown in the way they dress to their language and especially in their religion. This is shown with Arabic words like “Shai-Hulud” or "Mahdi", a prominent word in Islamic theology and somewhat similar to Messiah. Looking at a rival interplanetary group, the Harkonnens are portrayed as a violent colonizer, only concerned about spice (oil) production. Some have made comparisons of the Harkonnens to the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in the late seventies and early eighties.