Geopolitics as a Field of Knowledge - Essay Example

Geopolitics as a Field of Knowledge Geopolitics is a concept with various dimensions. The role of geopolitics can be made clear through the definition given to this concept by Spykman, an analyst in the field of international relations. According to Spykman “he who controls the Rimland controls Eurasia, who controls Eurasia controls the destinies of the world” (Warner 94). The above definition leads to certain assumptions: geopolitics, as a concept, is related to geography. This means that a decision based on geopolitics has, necessarily, to refer to a particular geographic area, even wide. It is at this point that geopolitics meets the requirements of a field of knowledge, being close to geography (Colledge 1). The relationship between geopolitics and geography is made clear through the following example: When choosing a region for establishing their state governors are likely to prefer an area which has “natural barriers, such as mountains, so that its security costs are low” (Lind 182). The specific phenomenon implies that an individual cannot take effective geopolitical decisions unless he is aware of the characteristics and potentials of a region in terms of geography. The relationship between geopolitics and geography, as explained above, reveals another dimension/ characteristic of geopolitics: the potential of this concept to have the form of a policy practice. In the example presented above, the policy maker has to be based on geographical data, as related to an area, in order to decide which region offers most advantages as a center of social and economic life. At this point, geopolitics interacts with the political theory. Reference is made especially to the “republican security theory” (Lind 182) which is based on the following perception: “a democratic republic can survive only if its security costs are low” (Lind 182). However, such target cannot be achieved unless particular methods are employed. Primarily, a military force that is able to protect the republic from its enemies need to be organized (Lind 182). Such plan can be effectively developed only through the identification of appropriate methods; it is at this point that geopolitics shows its characteristic as a set of methods. The use of geopolitics in developing critical state decisions is understood through the example of Britain: British preferred to establish their state in a region that is surrounded by water so that enemies are discouraged from invading in British territory (Lind 182). The above practice of British verifies the relationship between politics and geography, as reflected in geopolitics. The case of US highlights the value of geopolitics as a policy practice: in “US policy makers have tried to control security costs” (Lind 182) believing that quite low security costs can help to avoid turbulences in regard to social order (Lind 182). According to the issues discussed above, geopolitics can be related to different political and social needs, depending on the approach used each time for promoting geopolitics. For example, for certain states geopolitics is employed just for ensuring security while for other states geopolitics is vital for increasing global influence; the case of US is an indicative example of this trend. 2. We explored “power” and “security” as geopolitical phenomena generally and specifically in the context of US primacy. Drawing on several related sources from our reading list, please explore different definitions of “power” and “security” from a geopolitics perspective. In its most common form, power, as a term, is related to ‘physical power, especially military power’ (Posen 6). This type of power has been highly promoted by US especially during the country’s governance by G. Bush (Posen 6). The specific type of power is not easy to be achieved, being depended on high costs. For example, for 2013 the defense costs of US reached the ‘$685 billion’(Drezner 52). Even if the specific amount is quite high, US government considers military costs as necessary for ensuring the country’s security. In this case, the term security refers mostly to the safety of citizens but also the safety of the country’s infrastructure, in all its forms (Drezner 52). In other words, the military forces of a country, as reflecting the country’s military power, have a critical role in ensuring security as this term refers to the physical existence of a country’s citizens and infrastructure. In this context, the military power has to be an important criterion in regard to a country’s political and economic decisions. On the other hand, using military power is not easy. Indeed, military conflicts should not be opposed to international law; the latter defines clearly the rights of states and of individuals in the context of the international community (Posen 6). Also, military power is not always effective. The case of September the 11th proved that even if a state is quite developed as of its military power it cannot ensure its security (Lieber and Alexander 110). For these reasons, a different type of power has been promoted the last decade: it is the ‘diplomacy power’ (Posen 6). Such power indicates the potentials of a state to secure its rights through negotiations, avoiding its involvement in military conflicts (Posen 6). US has adopted the specific type of power for serving its interests more effectively; still, US has not abandoned the military power, as a means for promoting its geopolitical decisions worldwide. For increasing their diplomacy power US has adopted a ‘balancing strategy’ (Lieber and Alexander 109). In the context of this strategy US has emphasized on the improvement of its relations with ‘states that have increased regional influence, such as China and Russia’ (Lieber and Alexander 110). Emphasizing on this type of power could result in the limitation of military conflicts around the world; however, in practice this target seems difficult to be achieved especially since countries that focus on global hegemony, such as the US, are likely to feel threatened each time another state increases its power, a behavior aligned with the views of ‘structural realists’ (Lieber and Alexander 111). In any case, the diplomacy power, as developed in modern international relations, promotes another mode of security: it is a security based on the network of global allies, as these allies can ensure that a state will be able to control the potential threats both in the short and the long term (Lieber and Alexander 112). In other words, different types of security are likely to support different modes of power; the effectiveness of each of these types in ensuring a country’s safety cannot be guaranteed. Under certain conditions, the involvement of both types of power should be preferred so that severe risks in regard to a country’s safety are avoided. Works Cited Colledge, Reginald. The Nature of Geographic Knowledge. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 92.1 (2002): 1-14. Print. Drezner, Daniel. Military Primacy Doesn’t Pay (Nearly As Much As You Think). International Security 38.1 (2013): 52-79. Print. Lieber, Keir, and Gerard Alexander. Waiting for Balancing. International Security 30.1 (2005): 109-139. Print. Lind, Michael. A Neglected American Tradition of Geopolitics? Geopolitics 13: 181-195. Print. Posen, Barry. Command of the Commons. The Military Foundation of US Hegemony. International Security 28.1 (2003): 5-46. Print. Warner, Michael. A new strategy for the new geopolitics. Public Interest 153 (2003): 94-99. Print. Read More