Explain the causal logic of “geopolitics” and “globalization”. Эссе

Globalization is a controversial term referring to the concept of increased human interaction and interdependence across the globe. Some people regard globalization as a useful notion describing the evolution of human civilization. Others believe the term is merely a buzzword that is too confusing to provide meaningful understanding in our complex human world. Given the complexity of global human affairs, holders of both views have good reason to believe the way they do.

Brian W. Blouet gives the next definition of the globalization – „Globalization is the opening of national space to the free flow of goods, capital and ideas. Globalization removes obstructions to movement and creates conditions in which international trade in goods and services can expand”[1].

A similar definition of globalization is given by Cato Institute which represents the free market view. According to Cato’s definition, “globalization” describes the ongoing global trend toward the freer flow of trade and investment across borders and the resulting integration of the international economy. Because it expands economic freedom and spurs competition, globalization raises the productivity and living standards of people in countries that open themselves to the global marketplace.[2]” The Cato definition focuses on the economic aspects of globalization. It sees globalization as a beneficial process that enables free markets to provide for individual freedom. Free markets also lead to increasing standards of living for those participating in the globalization process.

The next definition of globalization captures the essence of the term while being free from the controversies created by conflicting worldviews. This definition is offered by David Held, Anthony McGrew, David Goldblatt, and Jonathan Perraton. In their comprehensive examination of globalization, “Global Transformations, Politics, Economics, and Cultures), they state that globalization is “a process (or set of processes) which embodies a transformation in the spatial organization of social relations and transactions – assessed in terms of their extensity, intensity, velocity, and impact – generating transcontinental or interregional flows and networks of activity, interaction, and the exercise of power”[3]. This definition is deep in academic verbiage but it can be simplified. Globalization represents “shrinkage” of the world with an increase in the “thickness” of human interaction. This is characterized by an increase in the intensity, extensity, velocity, and impact that human actions have on one another. Globalization increases the distance over which these human impacts reach. The stretching of these impacts is realized in the geographical dimension. This makes the impact of globalization more extensive.

Geopolitics has one similar point with the globalization – geography. Both are parts of geography. As there are a lot of definitions of the word geopolitics, it iwill give the most used definitions of this term. The first definition offered by political geographers Van der Wusten and Dijkink [4]is threefold, as the term Geopolitics can be used for (1) "a type of analysis using data concerning the international position of a country in light of its geographical features"  ; (2) "a set of rules applicable in conducting statecraft based on such analyses" ; and (3) "a discourse, a sustained argument, that describes and evaluates a country’s position in the world, possibly based on such analyses and the application of such rules". Both a political scientist and a practitioner of statecraft, Zbigniew Brzezinski[5] makes an interesting distinction between the geopolitical, the strategic and the geostrategic: "geopolitical reflects the combination of geographic and political factors determining the condition of a state or region, and emphasizing the influence of geography on politics, strategic refers to the comprehensive and planned application of measures to achieve a central goal or to vital assets of military significance; and geostrategic merges consideration with geopolitical ones". These definitions bring some clarity, but are far from fully accounting for the diversity of meaning given to Geopolitics. It seems certain that there are perceptible differences to interpret the concept of “Geopolitics” in historical and contemporary perspectives because it has been changing along with changing historical conditions. However, it is also possible to find some common denominators of geopolitical assumption of geopolitics, such as universality of national interests, the centralization of the state like Mackinder’s “pivot theory”, the reasoning of intervention and so on, all through the history. The ways to achieve tend to vary in accordance with prevailing issues and the interests of the power state at the time.

The term geopolitics has often been related in some ways to the academic discipline of geography but many important writers and politicians who have used the term have not been formally trained as geographers.  Geopolitics is a product of its times, and its definitions have evolved accordingly, Rudolph Kjellén, who coined the term in 1899, described geopolitics as “the theory of the state as a geographical organism or phenomenon in space”[6]. For Karl Haushofer, the father of German geopolitik, “Geopolitics is the new national science of the state, … a doctrine on the spatial determinism of all political processes, based on the broad foundations of geography, especially of political geography”[7]. On the eve of World War II, Derwent Whittlesey, the American political geographer, dismissed geopolitics as “a dogma … the faith that the state is inherently entitled to its place in the sun”[8]. Richard Hartshorne defined it as “geography utilized for particular purposes that lie beyond the pursuit of knowledge”[9].

In contrast to geographers Whittlesey and Hartshorne political scientist Edmund Walsh espoused an American geopolitics based upon international justice and that was “a combined study of human geography and applied political science…dating back to Aristotle, Montesquieu and Kant”[10].

For Geoffrey Parker, geopolitics is “the study of international relations from a spatial or geographical perspective,[11]” while John Agnew defined the field as “examination of the geographical assumptions, designations and understandings that enter into the making of world politics[12].” Gearold O’Tuathail, an exponent of critical geopolitics, argues that “geopolitics does not have a singular, all-encompassing meaning or identity… It is discourse, a culturally and politically varied way of describing, representing and writing about geography and international politics”[13].

Statesmen and scholars who view geopolitics as a vehicle for integrating geography and international politics may find it useful to define geopolitics, not as a school of thought, but as a mode of analysis, relating diversity in content and scale of geographical settings to exercise of political  power, and identifying spatial frameworks through which power flows.

Most definitions of the geopolitics define it on the one hand as geographical settings and perspectives and, on the other hand, as political processes.

According to the literature on the subject and according to the different definitions given by politics and specialists in the domain of globalization and geopolitics I came to the conclusion that the definition of geopolitics Brian W. Blouet is  which I consider to be most fruitful for the analysis of current international relations is that of Kjellén, R. basing on the selected definitions I came to the conclusion that globalization is the opening of national space to the free flow of goods, capital and ideas and that globalization removes obstructions to movement and creates conditions in which international trade in goods and services can expand. At the same time geopolitical policies seek to establish national or imperial control over space and the resources, route ways, industrial capacity and population the territory contains. This definition of geopolitics is in the tradition of German “Geopolitik”[14], which has its roots in the writings of Freidrich Ratzel in the late nineteenth century. The definition describes the activity of many states through the end of the Cold War.

The game board for globalization is marked out in the territory of sovereign states and no country can move to policies of globalization in isolation. Complete globalization would involve all countries accepting free movement and common standards for many goods, services, and practices, including environmental issues. States have promoted aspects of globalization. Britain, for example, in the second half of the nineteenth century, adopted free trade policies and insisted upon freedom of navigation outside territorial waters – the three-mile limit. The British Empirealso had a strategic, geopolitical structure with a string of naval bases to put down piracy and ensure freedom of the seas[15].

TheUnited Statesnow promotes free trade, opening up parts of the vast home market to encourage other states to do the same. TheUSwants the free movement of goods, capital, ideas, and the worldwide acceptance of laws dealing with copyright, intellectual property, patents and illegal flows of money, drugs, and goods. When threatened by geopolitical states theUSwill respond in kind.Cubaremains cut off from theUSafter allowing theSoviet Unionto construct missile bases on the island in 1962. WhenIraqinvadedKuwaittheUSprovided the bulk of the forces needed to reverse Iraqi occupation and prevent the regime pursuing expansionist, geopolitical policies in thePersian Gulf.

Tightly controlled geopolitical states of recent history include Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, Communist China, andNorth Korea. Nazi Germany and the Stalinist USSR wanted to strictly control national territory and the people living within it. Policy was directed at creating states that were largely self-sufficient and not dependent upon imports of resources or equipment. BothGermanyand theSoviet Unionhad territorial ambitions. Hitler’s expansion policies were driven by a desire to acquire more farmland, mineral resources, and timber. Stalin wanted back the non-Russian lands the Tsars had lost earlier in the twentieth century. With those lands came seaports and strategic territory in the Baltic and the North Pacific. Hitler and then Stalin wanted to dominateEurasia,Britain, theUS, and their allies resisted that challenge in the Second World War and the Cold War. The present phase of globalization springs from US actions and policies adopted immediately after the Second World War which undermined the protectionism that had been strengthened by theUSand other states in the slump of the 1930’s.

In such a way I consider that the theory of Kjellén, R. about geopolitics and the definition of globalization given by Brian W. Blouet are the most fruitful for the analysis of current international relations because they contain more details and information about the notion and the concept itself which help to comprehend the relationships between politics or territories on local or international scale.

Geopolitical relations are the part of society. Now all countries involved in global international community. In this community all have relations. This leads to existing associative memory property also in system of international relations.

The main purpose of each state’s geopolitics has been achieving power and maintaining the stance with power in international context. Although the history produced many contending perspectives on geopolitics that seemed to be merely an adaptation to newly emerged issues to keep pace with a rapid radical change. Thus it seems hazardous to assess “Geopolitics” in a facing contemporary context without considering how it has been evolved. Geopolitics is not only a way of interpreting current geopolitical realities but also a revolutionary process, which constantly reflects the whole picture in a wider historical context.

 Bibliography

1. Andrew Gyorgy, Geopolitics,Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress, 1944, p. 183.
2. Brian W. Blouet, Geopolitics and Globalization in the Twentieth Century, Cromwell Press, Trowbridge, Wiltshire, 2001,  p. 7
3. Brian W. Blouet, Geopolitics and Globalization in the Twentieth Century, Cromwell Press, Trowbridge, Wiltshire, 2001,  p. 204
4. Brzezinski, Z., Game Plan. How to Conduct the US-Soviet Contest, Boston, The Atlantic Monthly Press, 1986,
5. Cato Institute, Definition of globalization, 2006. Available online at www.cato.org/current/globalization/index.html (accessed November6, 2012)
6. Derwent Whittlesey, The Earth and the State,New York: Holt, 1939, p. 8
7. Edmund Walsh, Geopolitics and International Morals, in Compass of the World, ed. H. W. Eeigert and V. Stefansson, p.12-39,New York: Macmillan, 1944.
8. Friedrich Ratzel, Politische Geographie (Political Geography), 1897
9. Gearold O’Tuathail, Simon Dalby, and Paul Routledge, The Geopolitics Reader,London: Routledge, 1998, p. 3.
10. Geoffrey Parker, Geopolitics: Passt, Present and Future,London: Pinter, 1998, p. 5.
11. Hans Weigert, Generals and Geographers,New York:OxfordUniversityPress, 1942, p. 106-109
12. Held, David, Anthony McGrew, David Goldblatt, and Jonathan Perraton. Global Transformations, Politics, Economics and Culture.Stanford,CAStanfordUniversityPress. 1999.
13. John Agnew, Western Geopolitical Thought in the Twentieth Century,New York:St. Martin’s, 1985, p. 2.
14. Richard Hartshmore, The Nature of Geography,Lancaster,Pa.: Association of American Geographers, 1939, p. 404.
15. Richard Hennig, Geopolitik: Die Lehre vom Staat als Lebewesen,Leipzig: Hirzel, 1931, p. 9;
16. Rudolph Kjellén, Staten som Lifsform, 1916. Publlished in German as Der Staat also Lebenform,Leipzig: Hirzel, 1917, p. 34 – 35, 203;
17. Van DerR Wusten, H.; Dijkink, G., German, British and French Geopolitics: The Enduring Differences, Geopolitics, vol. 7, n° 3, 2002, p. 19–38.