Geopolitics is a branch of the social science paradigm which emphasises the inter-relations of nations as they seek to maximise territorial and resource control. It is a way of understanding the divisions of states on a plethora of levels as they engage in expansion, trade and conflict. The nature of geopolitics has timelessly been concerned with spatial limitations in relation to strategic decision making. The founding fathers of this academic discipline are Mahan, Ratzel, Mackinder and Kjellen whom each accentuate different elements of geostrategic consideration. However, Mackinder and Mahan are considered to render deeper resonance in the contemporary states system. Alfred Mahan emphasised the inherent value of naval dominance as a means for geostrategic supremacy. In contrast, Halfred Mackinder argued that control of Central Asia underpinned world dominance. Both theorists correctly addressed the pressing geopolitcal agenda of their respective contexts, however, the question remains of their enduring value in the contemporary geopolitcal realm. What remains to be considered is the true ability of these theories to connect with the increasingly transnational nature of modern governance and the way in which it seeks to overcome the implications of contemporary imperialism.
The geopolitical discipline emerged towards the end of the colonial era. With this, the key theorists were distinctly concerned with clear imperialist objectives. By the end of World War II the sun on Age of Empires was quickly setting. The gradual slowing of the Cold War seemed to mark the end of the conventional Imperial era. In this way, many academics dismissed Mackinder and Mahan. However, scholarly debate indicates that imperialist sentiment is a peren...
... middle of paper ...
...sideration for modern day policy makers. However, it can be concluded that, in a world defined by capitalist resource management, Mackinder's land mass theory is more useful than Mahan's sea power notions. However, attention must be paid to Mahan's core ideas. Both geopoliticians present valuable arguments. In a contemporary geopolitical contexts the principles presented by Mackinder are more readily equip to address the objectives of the US, the unipolarity of global politics and the evolving importance of Central Asia. Whilst sea power remains a key determinant in global power structures, land mass appears to be the more important frontier to conquer. Relationships amongst the core nations reveal this power struggle both within the Eurasian landmass and the Indian Ocean. Thus, Mackinder's 'Heartland' theory presents a more contextually dynamic and relevant thesis.
The 19th century set the stage for different policies that lead to the extending of America’s power, which is defined as imperialism. Imperialism started for different reasons like the Americans wanting the U.S. to expand or explore the unknown land, or even some feared existing resources in U.S. might eventually dry up. The reason imperialism started doesn’t really matter, but more of what it caused. Imperialism lead to Cuban assistance, the addition of Hawaii and Alaska to America, and Yellow Journalism.
The United States of America has never been content with stagnation. The landmass of the Thirteen Colonies was enough to rival that of the Mother country from which they separated. The forefathers believed that it was the manifest destiny of this nation to eventually claim the expansion from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean. By 1890, nearly a hundred years following the original claim of Manifest Destiny, the land that was once open, was now under American control. But no sooner was the Great American Frontier closed, than was the door to East Asian expansion opened with the great gold key of American diplomacy. In a world where imperialism was contagious, and cartographers had to work around the clock to keep up with an ever-changing geopolitical landscape, the United States seized the opportunity to establish herself as a significant world power. With great expansionist minds at her helm, such as Theodore Roosevelt and Howard Taft the United States began to grow beyond her border to claim stake in this wide-open world. This new expansionism of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century was a different institution than its early to mid nineteenth century counterpart. Still, the drive to exercise the sovereignty of the United State and to propel itself over the world’s stage was the same then as it was in the time of Thomas Jefferson. In order to understand this assertion, attention must be given to three levels of analysis. First, the similarities that exist between the drive and purpose of old and new expansion must be taken into account. Second, the differences in the global political scene must be considered. Finally, there exits differences in the means by which expansion occurred.
In the summer 1993 edition of the journal Foreign Affairs, Huntington argued that world politics was entering a new phase after the end of the Cold War, and that tensions between civilizations, as the highest cultural groupings of people, would dominate the global scene. He explains the article’s thesis in these words.
Western imperialism in the 1800s and early 1900s had positive, negative, and long-lasting effects in countries like India, regions of South East Asia, and Africa. There were many social, economic, and political changes. For example, in Hawaii there was an abundance of sugar cane crops and the U.S sought out to make money by occupying Hawaii. This was beneficial for the businessmen because they were receiving large quantities of money. However, the local peoples deeply opposed the selling of their crops. Throughout the course of imperialism in the 1800s and early 1900s, many other countries and regions such as India, regions of South East Asia, and Africa were faced with hardships while the imperialists raced to gain the most control.
Imperialism in the late 1800’s blossomed when a new phase of global expansion erupted. One of the main goals of this global expansion focused on new markets and sources of raw materials. Due to the Second Industrial Revolution, the demand for new markets and the exploding numbers in production compelled business leaders to search out new sources of investment for the growing economy. Rapid territorial expansion redirected the competing ideologies of agricultural demands, Native Americans, European Immigrants, and industrial capitalist in this new empire. In this search, manufacturers needed to find new raw materials in order to better equip themselves to sustain against the newly rising competitors. This caused competition with foreign market systems all around to begin pursuing an imperialistic empire. The European powers responded with aggressive nationalism when expanding their empire. This concept began trending internationally as other nations adapted the new concept of maintaining a steady nation through the new ideals of expansions.
When the Declaration of Independence was signed July 4th, 1776, the United States of America was born. From then on, things have never been the same. For example, the country was no longer under the control of Great Britain; we became our own democracy away from monarchy rule of Great Britain. One policy of America that has changed dramatically over the past 200 years, and will continue to change in the coming years, is foreign policy. The idea of foreign policy has gone from the Roosevelt Corollary to the Truman Doctrine, to the Domino Theory, just in the 20th century.
Nationalism is being patriotic towards one’s own country. It took place in the nineteenth century to those people who shared a language, history and culture. Nationalism led to creation of new powers, which are Italy and Germany. As these countries became united and stronger, they created war against other countries.
In order to spread their influence and promote their ideologies, the United States and the Soviet Bloc have mainly used two strategies: expansionism, which aim to get the stranglehold on as many places possible and containment, which is used so as to restrict the territorial growth of the opposite camp. But these strategies have led to murderous conflicts and endless wars in some territories, especially in Asia. Finally, it appears that these strategies were at the origin of a significant competition and a rise of palpable tensions all over the world.
To understand the power struggle relating to foreign policymaking, it is crucial to understand what foreign policy entails. The Foreign Policy Agenda of the U.S. Department of State declares the goals of foreign policy as "to build and sustain a more democratic, secure, and prosperous world for the benefit of the American people and the international community." While this definition is quite vague, the actual tools of foreign policy include Diplomacy, foreign aid, and military force.
Abstract: Since the end of the Cold War, the United States has been the world’s only unquestioned superpower. How the United States evaluates its position as global hegemon has important consequences for American foreign policy, particularly with regards to the potential for future policy constraints. Thus, this paper seeks to consider the question: How durable is American hegemony? The paper first defines the state of American hegemony and then considers the primary challengers: Europe, Russia, China, Japan and imperial overstretch. It will conclude that in the long-term, East Asian geopolitical instability poses the greatest threat to American hegemony, but that in the short-term, the hegemony will prove to be quite durable as long as the United States can counteract the phenomenon of imperial overstretch. In order to diffuse both internal and international threats to hegemony, American leaders should work to pursue national interests within a framework of consensus and legitimacy as much as possible.
The purpose of this essay is to inform on the similarities and differences between systemic and domestic causes of war. According to World Politics by Jeffry Frieden, David Lake, and Kenneth Schultz, systemic causes deal with states that are unitary actors and their interactions with one another. It can deal with a state’s position within international organizations and also their relationships with other states. In contract, domestic causes of war pertain specifically to what goes on internally and factors within a state that may lead to war. Wars that occur between two or more states due to systemic and domestic causes are referred to as interstate wars.
People’s ideas and assumptions about world politics shape and construct the theories that help explain world conflicts and events. These assumptions can be classified into various known theoretical perspectives; the most dominant is political realism. Political realism is the most common theoretical approach when it is in means of foreign policy and international issues. It is known as “realpolitik” and emphasis that the most important actor in global politics is the state, which pursues self-interests, security, and growing power (Ray and Kaarbo 3). Realists generally suggest that interstate cooperation is severely limited by each state’s need to guarantee its own security in a global condition of anarchy. Political realist view international politics as a struggle for power dominated by organized violence, “All history shows that nations active in international politics are continuously preparing for, actively involved in, or recovering from organized violence in the form of war” (Kegley 94). The downside of the political realist perspective is that their emphasis on power and self-interest is their skepticism regarding the relevance of ethical norms to relations among states.
The term "The Great Game" was originally coined to denote the political rivalry that existed between the British Empire and the Russian Empire during the nineteenth century. The two great powers clashed over interests in Central Asia, with Afghanistan at the epicentre. While the British sought a buffer to protect their crown colony India, the Russians feared that the British might undermine their power in Central Asia by inciting rebellion among the regional Muslim tribes. The threat of a unified Germany forced the two empires to broker the Anglo-Russian Agreement in 1907, which effectively signalled the end of the traditional phase of the Great Game. However, the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 left several newly independent nations in the Caspian Sea region, sitting in a power vacuum, where Soviet control once dominated them. Rich in both oil and natural gas, the Caspian Sea region rapidly directed the gaze of foreign powers to Central Asia once more, in what scholars are characterizing as the "New Great Game." As defined in this paper, the New Great Game refers to the geopolitical game played between nations to control Central Asia's energy supply. Unlike the previous phase of the game, it must be noted that the current phase is not rooted in territory, but something much more valuable. The prizes of the New Great Game are oil, pipelines, tanker routes, petroleum consortiums, and contracts. And the players have multiplied to include the United States, Russia and Iran as major powers, in addition to regional powers such as Pakistan India, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Turkey, Turkmenistan and Afghanistan. Although the original projection of oil reserves in the 1990s was estimated to be between 100-150 billion barrels (bb), pr...
In this paper, I will argue that the current system is hegemonial. My explanation to hegemony will then be centered on the sources of the United States as a hegemonial power. Furthermore, I will state the different primary implications associated with the rise of China and what the Roman Empire offers for understanding the United Sta...
The international system is an anarchical system which means that, unlike the states, there is no over ruling, governing body that enforces laws and regulations that all states must abide by. The International System in today’s society has become highly influential from a number of significant factors. Some of these factors that will be discussed are Power held by the state, major Wars that have been fought out in recent history and international organisations such as the U.N, NATO and the W.T.O. Each of these factors, have a great influence over the international system and as a result, the states abilities to “freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social, and cultural development”.