GeopolÍtica (Eric Pardo) PDF

Preview

Summary

Pptx convertidos a word...

Description

INTRODUCTORY SESSION

What influences the political realm? Physical geography and human geography: q Physical geography: Branch of geography concerned with natural features. Mountain vs. plain, interior vs. access to sea, climate differences (f. ex. humid vs. dry climate; cold vs. warm, etc.). q Human geography: Brach of social sciences that deals with the study of people and their communities. q Qualitative dimension: Ethnic, religious and cultural differences, those which create different “reliefs” distinguishing human communities. around the globe and which constitute its extreme plurality. q Quantitative dimension: The population that inhabits a particular region and the degree of concentration within a territory (population density).

The perils of isolation: The American continent and diseases from the rest of the world •

Millennia of isolation had resulted in several diseases to which the rest of the world was relatively immunized to be unknown.

•

When Spanish colonizers brought diseases from Europe, the impact on the native population was devastating: along the sixteenth century, it is presumed that around 90% of population was lost!

Politics as an Autonomous Factor (I) q We have seen so far that both physical and human geography have an impact on the political realm, so we may understand political geography as the combination of these two “primary geographies”; We have been able to see how humankind is dependent on many respects on its environment. 1

q However, either physical or human geography are necessarily mediated by human institutions. Geography is not a self-explaining factor such as that all political phenomena could be deduced from it. Geography is an important structure indeed, which precludes certain phenomena, as we saw in our previous examples. However, within that structure, we must consider human agency. q The relation between geography and political geography can be understood as an example of necessary and sufficient causes.

Not! posible!

! Posible! Not! posible!

•

The main circle represents the structure formed by physical and human geography. What is located without the circle is not possible!

•

However, small circles located within the circle represent all phenomena that can be possible, as they are not structurally precluded. It is here that human agency rules.

2

Necessary and sufficient conditions q In social sciences this distinction is vital to understand causal processes: § Whenever a social phenomenon happens, several conditions need to be present in order we witness this phenomenon; however, there is a certain hierarchy between them. Take the simplified example of a leak in our ceiling: ü We owe an apartment in the upper floor of a building and we suddenly notice there is a leak in the ceiling: What is the necessary condition for suffering this nasty phenomenon? ü In our case, as there is no pipe above our head, the answer is rain: only rain can cause a leak. However, in normal conditions, would it be sufficient to have several rainy days in order to suffer a leak? ü The obvious answer is no: we need to have a badly isolated ceiling in order to suffer from a leak. This is a second necessary condition. ü Isolated, these, while necessary conditions, remain insufficient: neither rain with a well isolated ceiling causes nor a badly isolated ceiling in the desert of Atacama (Chile) should provoke a leak. However, when the two necessary conditions concur, they become sufficient. q What implication does have this for our discussion regarding geography and ideas/institutions? § As we may notice, geography may be a necessary condition for a diverse set of social phenomena to happen: our two examples in the slide above provide us with a clear picture of the implication: geography is a necessary condition for social interaction.

3

§ However, geography is in itself not enough to explain what kind of social interaction we will have: will it be war? Or rather alliance? Or maybe will it be a relation of neutrality where economic cooperation will hold the upper hand? Geography may explain that this relation will be natural, but not whether it will be enemy or friend! q Whereas geography is a given physical element, the intervening factors that shape relations between more or less geographically close entities are the object of social construction! Conclusion q We have seen the importance of physical and human geographies as structures that influence politics. In that respect, we can talk of political geography as for the effects geography has. q At the same time, we can also talk of political geography when we refer to how the world is divided in states or different political unities. Here political geography is understood as a metaphor: paralleling the relief formed by geography, states represent the political “relief”. q It must also be highlighted that politics are not determined in all aspects by geography: political geography is not absolute determinism. In fact, politics are often autonomous within the structure of geography. Here we find the role of human agency. q Geography as a structure may be a necessary and sufficient condition to preclude certain outcomes, but is far from being sufficient for many others where human agency can operate. Within the structure, human agency provides intervening factors that explain why particular outcomes are reached. Human agency constructs in a large measure history, with geography at the background.

4

LECTURE 1

q Geography (either physical or human) is a structural factor which has a substantial impact on politics: •

This influence is the object of study of the discipline of political geography.

•

Political geography can also be understood in a different definition (through a metaphor of physical geography) as the “relief” composed by states; geography would be a determinant of the shape of political geography.

q However, we also saw that politics is at the same time: •

An autonomous factor where human agency plays a relevant role in determining diverse outcomes.

•

A factor than within its scope of autonomy can also heavily influence physical and human geographies.

q Thus, the importance of the school of constructivism, which points to the social construction of the social world is manifest when it comes to the consideration of the autonomy of politics and the role of human agency (human agency “constructs” whether my neighbour is a friend or a foe!). q When we come to the doctrine of geopolitics as it was born in the late 19th and early 20th century (as we will study starting from the 3rd week), we must highlight that this school represented an attempt to study the influence of geography on international relations. It thus belonged to the discipline of political geography: •

From a scientific point of view, geopolitics wanted to find causal patterns and establish scientific laws to prescribe how policy-makers should behave.

•

However, the school of geopolitics, which we will identify here as historical geopolitics was heavily criticized. One the main critic come 5

from a group of political geographers who compose what is known as critical geopolitics. At the core of their critic we may find the main flaw of geopolitics, which is their attempt at scientific explanations which lacked rigour; namely, to elevate hypotheses which could not be demonstrated by the nature of social sciences (how can we make experiments??) to the rank of scientific law! •

Critical geopolitics, thus, criticizes geopolitical explanations as unscientific and as dangerous due to their possible effect. Critical geopolitics is strongly based on constructivism and as such, denounces geopolitical discourses as dangerous as they may become true if accepted. This critic is not restricted to historical geopolitics, but to popular geopolitics too. Popular geopolitics may be understood not as much as an attempt at linking geography with international relations but as the popular use nowadays of categories of exclusion, reflecting the sum-zero power based logic of historical geopolitics and in coincidence with the school of realism.

FUNDAMENTALS OF GEOPOLITICS

1. THE WORLD AS A SINGLE UNITY The key period for understanding when the world comes to be seen as single unity is the XV-XVI century. It is in during this time when the world can be apprehended in its totality and ceases to be limited anymore. Limits are physically discovered through explorations made from Europe (Portugal reaches Asia by sea, Spain discovers America and circumnavigates the world for the first time). At the same time, this period of discoveries and the development of cartography (the world can be “seen” in its totality), comes along with the creation of a world economy for the first time in history, with Europe at its center as the prime economic 6

power. It is Europe who “discovers” the world and this will have a clear influence on how geopolitics unfold; geopolitics will become an instrument for European powers to understand the world from the perspective of power. One key element that has to be understood is that the elevation of the world as an object of contemplation through the development of cartography enables the subject to detach itself and thus observe the world “objectively”. Much of this is merely an illusion, as the subject nevertheless transfers into his/her vision of the world all those preconceptions deriving from the culture inherited. The world is “objectively” organized through a cultural mindset, even if this may happen unconsciously. The second key element that brings about a substantial change in the panorama is that those parts of the world which were termed as unknown so far, and which remained without the maps, are now integrated within. Since the reach of Europe has now become global and the world economy starts being integrated within the centrality of Europe as political and economic actor, these regions need to be confronted: this leads to Europe´s drawing of a hierarchy where Europe, as the chief “known” territory (namely, that who “discovers” the “rest”) will stay at the helm of the world. The conception of the world as a unity enables hierarchy, as already stated in the slide above, especially because unity is apprehended progressively through the process of discovery and its cartographic rendering. This opens a two way option: § To assume a universalist point of view of equality between all those belonging to the single world. This is the point of view assumed by the philosopher Herder in the XVIII Century, for whom a single human race exists and therefore, a single human reason. § To assume to the last consequence the hierarchical process of discovery and to establish a series of countries or cultures located at the top, while the remaining are located, on the contrary, below. We may see that during most of the human history, it is the latter model which we will find in patterns of either good vs. evil (great power rivalry, as in the West vs. 7

East mindset during the Cold War) or developed vs. underdeveloped (colonization mindset and distinction between the First and Third Worlds). As John Agnew points out (Agnew, 2005: 25) there is a universalist projection, but based on European values! Those who do not conform, are therefore left out and forced into hierarchical schemes. An interesting question is to consider where both capitalism and communism are located: do they represent Universalist equality or on the contrary a new form of Hierarchy? § Capitalism should benefit all after its world completion. However differences as for development may be rationalized not as much as problems inherent to the whole process of globalized capitalism which generates inequality, but as a consequence of certain countries´ inability to adapt! While this may be correct in many cases, some other countries may remain at certain stages of development due to how the world has been globalized, favouring a set of countries over the rest. § Communism was probably the most explicit in its universalistic aspiration to liberate humankind. However, we find that the system centred on the Soviet Union soon started establishing hierarchies among the countries that composed the so-called Second World. The chief example may be found in the relation that the Soviet Union established with Eastern Europe after WWII: in spite of having forced on these countries Soviet-style communist regimes, they were denied the same category; instead of being Socialist Republics, they composed a lesser class, that of Popular Democracies!

2. DISCOURSE OF CIVILISATION 8

John Agnew exposes this topic through the formula: “conversion of time into space”. What our author tries to explain is that new regions are classified in function of our own past: instead of studying these new regions, they are classified in relation of our previous knowledge of ourselves. Therefore, difference is not apprehended from a neutral point of view, but biased on the basis of our own reality. The consequence is that territories fall into the categories of “civilized” vs. “uncivilized”, “forward” vs. “backward”, “developed” vs. “underdeveloped”, etc. It may strike you that many of these categories are not simple inventions stemming from Europe´s prejudices: different levels of economic, technical and technological development may eventually be measurable and open to neutral acknowledgement. It may be sound to recognize that, indeed, many of the new civilizations will be going through a stage of development that Europe went through in the past. However, there is a crucial element in the “conversion of time into space” that modifies this simple scheme and bereaves it of its potential neutrality: once time is transformed into space, these differences are transformed into something permanent. Instead of corresponding to a given stage of development, they rather represent an intrinsic feature of a region, country or civilization. These spaces are therefore identified as being intrinsically “primitive”. The process of conversion of time into space leads to a process of essentialization. Civilizational discourse is that a necessary basis for the establishment of a hierarchy and goes thus in hand with the world as a single unity.

3. WORLD DIVISION IN TERRITORIAL STATES The world is divided between different states, with few territories not belonging to any particular state (The Antarctic continent, high-seas, etc.). -

With such world division, a component of power appears (power as who has power over whom?): a same territory cannot belong to two states; mixed jurisdictions as during the feudal times disappear. This is the concept of sovereignty, implying an element of exclusivity and this necessarily implies 9

enforcement if necessary (military power), as sovereignty over territory is an elemental dimension of the state. -

As a derivation from the concept of sovereignty, there is a radical division between national and international jurisdictions, while society comes to be identified as national depending on what state it belongs to. John Agnew terms this reality of sovereignty as the “territorial trap”. We will

distinguish that territorial trap in two dimensions, factual and perceptual: a. Factual: Africa may represent a good example: the human geography of Africa, with its diverse cultures, ethnic groups was not considered by the colonizers when geographical divisions were established by all European powers. When Africa decolonized, it did not revert into the previous human geography of the continent: new states were based on how colonizers cut the “African cake” and were therefore dangerously unstable to civil wars provoked by ethnical cleavages. The territorial trap still besets Africa nowadays. b. Perceptual: i. Achievements within the society become achievements of a national society, more than belonging to individuals or larger communities transcending boundaries and time. They are part of a national spirit. An example may be found in the stamps dedicated to Marie Curie (A French scientist? A Polish national? Or a universal scientist that can transcend borders and be claimed by Spain?) or the contentious “national nature” of Francisco Sánchez “El Escéptico”. ii. Another example can be the difference between Northern rich European countries and Southern poor European countries; whereas the former tend to be protestant, the latter tend to be catholic. However, if we see through the national borders, the picture is more mixed: we find within the Catholic South very 10

rich regions as Northern Italy or Catalonia and the Basque Country within Spain.

4. FIGHT FOR SUPREMACY There is an inherent tension between the legal equality (sovereignty) of states and the physical unbalance between them: a. The Westphalian consensus of sovereignty establishes equality. b. However, countries are not equal as for their economic development and this has a clear reflection on their military capacities. Within the Theory of International Relations, there are different perspectives as for how states behave among each other in this context: -

Realism and neo-realism: States are symmetrical, located in an anarchic and (non-hierarchic) structure and must rely on themselves: deterrence equilibrium and polar systems result from there.

-

Neo-liberalism: States are styled in a similar fashion as in neo-realism: rational and self-interested. The difference is that this rationality does not lead to zerosum logic, but positive-sum logic: instead of competing to avoid other states´ gains at their expense, they cooperate to create and share gains.

-

Constructivism: the international system is assumed to be “socially constructed”, not materially derived from the existence of states; their relations respond to how they are constructed and are either competitive or cooperative relations depending on social construction (remember the example of “natural enemies”!)

What is the “geo-politic” mindset we find both in historical and popular geopolitics? -

It is coincident with the tenets of realism, which links up to a negative human anthropology (Hobbes, Machiavelli) of enmity: Hans Morgenthau pointed to human lust for power and Kenneth Waltz to the security dilemma: distrust feeds arms races and provides thus with reasons to distrust! 11

-

However, whereas in realism we usually find that a balance of power brings certain order, geopolitics usually portrays existential enemies which are to be destroyed in order to achieve hegemonies. The reality of differential development trumps the balance of power (see slide 20) and geopolitical discourses of existential opposition come as a reinforcement: i. Geopolitical logic clearly appears in the discourse by Ronald Reagan calling the Soviet Union “The Empire of Evil” or when the Ayatollah Khomeini labeled the US as the “Great Satan”. ii. This reappeared under Bush Jr. with the label of “Axis of Evil” referring to Iraq, Iran and North Korea.

Axioms of the geopolitical thought: § 1st Axiom: related to realist thinking, power gained by one state is power lost by another. If realism talks of balance of power, geopolitical thought focuses rather on the differential rate of growth of countries: a growing country may be the forerunner of a new hegemony. The competition thus becomes hegemonic. § 2nd Axiom: Stemming again from the logic of realism, the element of anarchy is crucial to understand hegemonic competition. In the geopolitical logic, anarchy becomes something determined, it is no longer in the reach of state actors to change this reality and everyone has to “obey” and fight for supremacy. q Reflecting on the first axiom: does the differential of power always have to lead to hegemonic competition? See: US ...