Heard on podcast a riveting interview with Robert Kaplan author of the Revenge of Geography. The premise is that the geographical features of a nation impacts their aspirations and fears relative to its foreign policy.
For instance, Kaplan views that Russia will always be a significant world power because it is a huge country rich with natural resources. However, because it is largely land-locked and for historical reasons, it fears invasions and will always want to influence/meddle with/intervene in its neighbors in Eastern Europe and Central Asia to maintain a "buffer" for its own protection. This template, according to Kaplan, is the driving force for much of European history: a rivalry between Russia and some other entity to the west (either France or Germany). And indeed, he points out Germany is the economic and diplomatic driver of the EU and current rival to Russia.
He views the fact that China has a large coastline as key to understanding China's ability and aspirations to be a world superpower just as England at one time dominated the seas and built its empire and how the USA currently rules the oceans. However, he notes that China faces some serious internal challenges because at the edges of its borders are Mongolia, Xinjiang, Tibet and Yunnan that are of different ethnic groups and are hard to control.
India walks a tightrope because it wants to be friends with the USA, the current economic and military superpower, but since it shares a border with China, it fears China. Thus, if China-US relations sour, it is likely to side with China because they are next door. Likewise, if China and the US get closer, they will want to cozy up to the USA.
He notes that Mexico is under-appreciated as a foreign policy question for the USA. Mexico is on the verge of becoming a failed nation-state and that decline would seriously impact the USA since it shares a huge border. Likewise, a stable Mexico would secure North America as the dominant power center of the world because of the rich resources in Canada, USA and Mexico. However, Mexico is difficult to govern because it is mountainous.
As a global trend, urbanization will strain all governments. He noted in the world today there are nearly 40 cities with over 10+ million people and nearly 400 cities with over 1+ million people. Cities inherently require more government services and the continuing trend toward urbanization could fuel unrest if governments fail to meet the needs of people in these growing cities.
Certainly, geography is an important feature of why nations behave the way they do. But what about ideology?
One wonders what the world would have looked like without Nazi propaganda of ethnic superiority, Communist belief that their system was the ultimate destination of history and the Maoist cult of personality?
Did those ideologies just amplify geographic pre-destination?
Would some other reason have arisen for those three regimes grab at world domination?
Or how about this counter-factual, what would history have looked like if the USA instead of reducing its military after World War II had decided to "go full Roman?"
It is generally believed that no super-power can remain for very long. Thus, if the USA had gone "full Roman" would the world now be a smoking ruin after the world finally threw off its American overlords?
The fact is the US opted for "containment" rather than "full Roman" as its post-WW2 approach. Was this driven by ideological factors or was it simply the geography of two large oceans?
Likewise, today, what would the world look like if there was not an extreme brand of Islam? Or if there were many millions of Mother Teresa's?
I suspect geography is a good filter to view world affairs and the course of history but ideology shouldn't be ignored.
No comments:
Post a Comment