Geopolitics And Geostrategic Implications On Power Shift

Geopolitical Theories

Describe about the Geopolitics And Geostrategic Implications On Power Shift.

The concept of geopolitics aligns with the geopolitical theory established by Karl Haushofer which presented the idea that nations require expansion to fulfill their destiny or objectives. In this, the theory postulated that the future growth of different countries lies in their ability to expand both in power and resources. The concept has been applied by various countries after the WW II through the invasion of new territories beyond their geographical imperatives such as Germany. Countries such as the US has also acquired immense power by recognizing the importance of different resources such as oil to modern economies promoting their current superpower position. Some of the countries expansion strategies have been established in the content of geostrategic thoughts and practices to enhance the continued power of the countries. The United States has a for a long time dominated the world in various aspects such as the economy, power involving air and sea. However, the current trends demonstrate the rise of China and India as the great powers both on sea and air posing a threat to the continued progress of the superpowers. Geopolitical theories can further be applied to understand the global shift of power to China and India which has significant geostrategic implications.

According  to Fettweis, traditionally, geopolitics is described as the study of  "the influence of geographical factors on political action[1]." However, the definition has evolved over the years and also tends to be synonymous with regional problem or resources such as oil and energy thus influencing other countries actions. Different theorists such as Colin Gray, Mahan and Mackinder place geography in the center of international relations to decipher the key external aspects that drive a countries actions[2]. Geopolitics approaches have for a long time been used to describe and establish issues associated with geopolitical idea across a wide range of cultural objects. Additionally, the methods have also been applied to describe country formations with geographical connotations and conceptual agendas such as power. According to Fettweis, Mackinder's "Heartland Theory" is one of the key geopolitical theories that promotes understanding of the continued world dominance[3]. Mackinder's theory examined the advantages of central positioning on Eurasians landmass which also shapes understanding of the US containment policy during the cold war[4]. According to the theory, countries scrambled for what they considered as key to their continued dominance or power thus shaping the international system. Mackinder's theory is still central to different policies established by countries such as China, India, and the US regarding their foreign interests[5].

Mackinder's Heartland Theory

Halford Mackinder's Heartland theory viewed the world conflicts as involving constant conflict between land and sea powers in attempts to increase the countries advantage over their regional adversaries[6]. According to Mackinder, countries who ruled the heartland would have the higher possibility of commanding the entire world since they had the ability to project power anywhere faster than the sea forces[7]. The theory can; therefore, be applied to understand how countries have expanded externally in the bid to ensure the balance of power works in their favor promoting the idea the power politics marks the current competition over territories and control. Geopolitics theorists consider geopolitics as a strategy and a realist approach to international relations in which countries have drawn in constructing their continued power and progress.

The second theory applicable in understanding geopolitics includes Mahan's theory which was based on focusing on commerce to promote the American economic vitality through control of the critical geographical node[8]. Mahan's theory supported the idea that overseas bases were essential in supporting trade and also posited the need to command the sea and air to enhance the expansion. The approach also inspired the U.S dominance and expansion into Asia in the 1890s. Mahan's theory postulated that the control of key points on the map was indispensable to sea power providing an understanding of different countries undertaking such as China and India. Like Mackinder's arguments, the implications of Mahan's ideas has been far reaching enabling countries to establish strategic positions to enhance their power or dominance on Eurasian landmass, sea, and air[9]. The theory of Mahan identified sea power as the key to national power and prosperity as well as international expansion. According to the theory, Mahan had the premise that the countries control over key trading routes that involved oceans was a fundamental factor in any country's power or achievement of greatness[10]. Mahan provided the idea that sea power was essential to international power, a view that has significantly influenced states towards establishing foreign policies and strategies to enhance their sea power.

The U.S exhibits key aspects provided by Mahan's theory due to their desire to improve their sea power and maintain the superpower position. Mahan's views on sea power have inspired the rise in maritime and air power in China and India representing a global shift in the authority from the US and the Soviet Union initially described as the only superpowers. Countries such as China are aligning their foreign policies and naval strategies towards achieving influence and prosperity in the sea and air, an essential aspect identified by Mahan's theory. In similar views with Mackinder's focus on the heartland, the ideas continue to influence policymakers across the global particularly China and India due to their desire to control the world. Fettweis notes that the implications of the theories have been far reaching as countries seek control of vital interest to reduce the chances of any power or country dominating them[11].

Mahan's Theory

Karl Haushofer theory is also listed among the geopolitical theories that had a profound impact on foreign policy Hitler's foreign policy. Haushofer's theory echoes Mackinder's theory of the heartland. It provided the notion that countries required more expansion to enhance their power and future growth. The method assumes that geopolitical changes involve significant challenges as countries do not automatically adjust to geopolitical changes. Haushofer provided the example of Germans rise to power as well as the competition between the US and the Soviet Union as each control sought to expand their size as well as strength[12].

Theorists such as Mahan and Mackinder are key proponents of geopolitics and advocates for sea power as the aspect which promotes the countries national power and prosperity. For example, Mahan's ideas have influenced China's continued progress in air and sea power due to the belief that the air and sea are keys to the international power as well as prosperity. Similarly, India has also progressed based on the influence of Mahan's ideas to expand their sea power as well as exert influence over the world. In his views, Mahan pointed out that attaining sea superiority depended on the geographical position of the country, the extent of the territory, population size, physical power as well as the national character. The aspect has significantly shaped the policies and strategies established by China and India to expand their global power. Not only are the theories effective in influencing geopolitics sea power but have also inspired air power through improved militaries based on dominant maritime forces. Today, India and China are ranked among the most progressed regarding naval and air power based on their military might[13].

Other air and power theorists such as Giulio Douhet have exerted significant influence in the countries development in both maritime and air power as well as their desire to control or be powerful compared to other nations. Douhet's theories shaped both American and British air power demonstrating the influence of the principles of national policies, military strategy and geopolitics. In his book, The Command of the Air, Douhet described the vision of air power as a critical and decisive aspect in warfare[14]. In this regard, Douhet has always argued for the air and sea power as the key to geopolitics. During the second world war, the US and British adopted the approach increasing mass-bombings, reducing other countries capabilities and ability to produce weapons. As such, the US has remained in the top position due to applying both the air and sea power approaches as influenced by the theories identified above[15].

Geopolitics and Sea power

The sustained international supremacy of the US has created the rise of different states in the bid to end the power by expanding their economies and international order. For a long time, no nation or state has been able to match the dimensions of authority held by the US such as military, technological, economy and cultural. Hence, the US has held the top position in global leadership. However, with the rise of geopolitics ideas the supremacy of the US stands at risks as countries establish geostrategic position aimed at shifting the long held power from the US.  In this regard, geopolitics theories have played a key role in shaping the national policies, desires, and strategies of China and India through improving their sea and air power to achieve the top position. This represents a shift of power from the US to the rising nations and serves as a critical threat to the continued progress and supremacy of the US. In his article, Mark, identified space or air power as critical to realizing the leadership and military power of the US[16]. In this regard, the country has for a long time invested in expanding their space power as a strategic aspect to demonstrate the military capability. Lambeth also agrees with the idea of air and space power as the key elements that characterized the US[17]. Air and space power was considered critical in deterring nuclear weapons, supporting the ground operations as well as produce strategic results independently of the land forces during the war. The air force deemed U.S as influential in both tactical and policy aspects are enhancing its ability to advance its expansion objectives further.

However, Dolman, asserts that rise of geopolitics and its reach in the realms of power have influenced countries towards establishing critical strategies to achieve geographical positioning necessary to exert control over the world[18]. "Geostrategic" represents one key focus by countries such as China and India that involves the strategic application of new and emerging technologies of positional knowledge, topographic and geographic knowledge. Geostrategic; therefore, has influenced the rise in air and sea power of the two countries beyond positions of the US representing a sudden shift in the authority (Holmes & Yoshihara, 2005). However, much of the strategies taken by the two countries have been shaped by ideas from geopolitics such as Mahan argument on air and seas power as the key to creating necessary power. In this regard, China and India continue to scramble for resources to build its sea and air power against the US as seen in its naval progress. One of the geopolitical ideas that shapes China's strategies includes Mahan argument that "One can only guarantee smooth sea traffic and eventually gain seas domination by annihilating the enemy[19]."

Geopolitics and Air Power

The case presents Mahan doctrine interpreted by India and China in similar versions that the "the one who controls the seas controls the world[20]." Likewise, India has joined China in breaking the long-standing supremacy of the western powers through improved sea and air for  Mahanian offensive sea control. As China and India focus their resources on building their navy and sea power as well as seeking bases to protect trade and their projects, the US interest and power continue to drift towards the East. Both China and India agree with the geopolitics theorists that naval power is critical to their national greatness and prosperity. As such the US can only seek more alliance or invest more in ensuring the realization of their national interests and reduce power shift in the sea and air to maintain the superpower position.

References

Bassin, Mark." Civilizations and their Discontents: Political Geography and Geopolitics in the Huntington Thesis." Geopolitics, 12 (2007).351-374

Brzezinski, Zbigniew." The Grand Chessboard: US Geostrategy for Eurasia. Harvard  International Review, 20:1 (1998).pg 48

Desch, Michael. " The Keys that Lock Up the World: Identifying American Interests in the  Periphery." International Security, 14:1 (1989).pp.86-121

Dolman, Everett. "Geostrategy in the space age: An astropolitical analysis. Journal of Strategic  Studies, 22:2-3 (1999), 83-1006.

Dodds, Klaus & Sidaway, James." Halford Mackinder and the 'geographical pivot of history': a  centennial retrospective. The Geographical Journal, 170 (2004).pg 292

Fettweis, Christopher, J." Sir Halford Mackinder, geopolitics, and policymaking in the 21st  century. Parameters; Summer, 30:2 (2000).pg 58

Grygiel, Jakub." The dilemmas of US Maritime Supremacy in the early cold war." Journal of  Strategic Studies, 28:2(2005).pp 187-216

Harter, Mark." Ten propositions regarding space power: The dawn of a space force. Air & Space   Power Journal, 20:2 (2006).

Holmes, James R. & Yoshihara, Toshi. "The Influence of Mahan upon China's Maritime Strategy," Comparative Strategy, 24:1 (2005) 23-51, DOI: 10.1080/01495930590929663.

Johnson, Robert. " Exaggerating America's Stakes in Third World Conflicts." International    Security, 10:3 (1986).

Kearns, Gerry. "Naturalising Empire: Echoes of Mackinder for the Next American Century."   Geopolitics, 11(2006):74-98.

Lambeth, Benjamin."Air power, space power and geography. Journal of Strategic Studies, 22: 3    (1999).63-82.

Megoran, Nick." Revisiting the 'Pivot': The Influence of Halford Mackinder on Analysis of   Uzbekistan's International Relations." The Geographical Journal, 170:4 (2004).

Sage, Daniel."Framing Space: A popular Geopolitics of American Manifest Destiny in Outer        Space." Geopolitics, 13 (2008).27-53.

[1] Christopher, Fettweis, J." Sir Halford Mackinder, geopolitics, and policymaking in the 21st century.     Parameters; Summer, 30:2 (2000).pg 58

[2] James, Holmes R. & Toshi, Yoshihara. "The Influence of Mahan upon China's Maritime    Strategy," Comparative Strategy, 24:1 (2005) 23-51, DOI: 10.1080/01495930590929663.

[3] Christopher, Fettweis, J." Sir Halford Mackinder, geopolitics, and policymaking in the 21st century.    Parameters; Summer, 30:2 (2000).pg 58

[4] Klaus, Dodds, &, James, Sidaway." Halford Mackinder and the 'geographical pivot of history': a    centennial retrospective. The Geographical Journal, 170 (2004).pg 292

[5]Nick, Megoran." Revisiting the 'Pivot': The Influence of Halford Mackinder on Analysis of             Uzbekistan's International Relations." The Geographical Journal, 170:4 (2004).

[6] Gerry, Kearns,. "Naturalising Empire: Echoes of Mackinder for the Next American Century."        Geopolitics, 11(2006):74-98.

[7] Klaus, Dodds, &, James, Sidaway." Halford Mackinder and the 'geographical pivot of history': a centennial retrospective. The Geographical Journal, 170 (2004).pg 292

[8] Mark, Bassin,." Civilizations and their Discontents: Political Geography and Geopolitics in the       Huntington Thesis." Geopolitics, 12 (2007).351-374

[9] Klaus, Dodds, &, James, Sidaway." Halford Mackinder and the 'geographical pivot of history':      a          centennial retrospective. The Geographical Journal, 170 (2004).pg 292

[10] Gerry, Kearns,. "Naturalising Empire: Echoes of Mackinder for the Next American Century."       Geopolitics, 11(2006):74-98.

[11] Christopher, Fettweis, J." Sir Halford Mackinder, geopolitics, and policymaking in the 21st century.             Parameters; Summer, 30:2 (2000).pg 58

[12] Everett, Dolman,. "Geostrategy in the space age: An astropolitical analysis. Journal of Strategic   Studies, 22:2-3 (1999), 83-1006.

[13] Benjamin, Lambeth,."Air power, space power and geography. Journal of Strategic Studies, 22: 3             (1999).63-82.

[14] Mark, Harter,." Ten propositions regarding space power: The dawn of a space force. Air & Space            Power Journal, 20:2 (2006).

[15] Jakub Grygiel,." The dilemmas of US Maritime Supremacy in the early cold war." Journal of       Strategic Studies, 28:2(2005).pp 187-216

[16] Mark, Harter,." Ten propositions regarding space power: The dawn of a space force. Air & Space            Power Journal, 20:2 (2006).

[17] Benjamin, Lambeth,."Air power, space power and geography. Journal of Strategic Studies, 22: 3             (1999).63-82.

[18] Everett, Dolman,. "Geostrategy in the space age: An astropolitical analysis. Journal of Strategic    Studies, 22:2-3             (1999), 83-1006

[19] Michael, Desch,. " The Keys that Lock Up the World: Identifying American Interests in the          Periphery." International Security, 14:1 (1989).pp.86-121

[20] James, Holmes R. & Toshi, Yoshihara. "The Influence of Mahan upon China's Maritime   Strategy," Comparative Strategy, 24:1 (2005) 23-51, DOI: 10.1080/01495930590929663