JEOPOLİTİK STRATEJİ - Deneme Sınavı - 7

The word ‘geopolitics’ consists of two different words. ‘Geo’ is the abbreviation of geography. Politics means deciding who gets what, how and when. Geography consists of two words, geo and graphy. Geo means earth and graphy means writing. Geopolitics means the politics of writing the earth.

As also understood from the information given, the answer is E. All of the statements in the options related to the meaning of geopolitics are correct.

The fundamental claim of critical geopolitical studies is that all kinds of geopolitical understandings are subjective and reflect particular values and previously conceived national interests. There is not an objective scientific understanding of geopolitics as claimed by first generation geopolitical writers. Naming particular physical locations as they are and attributing meanings to geographical locations are all political exercises in the background. There is not a bird-view of geopolitics which is claimed to be timeless and ahistorical.

Geopolitical understandings of different time periods tend to demonstrate diverging conceptualizations of power. Power is closely related to geopolitics. For example, while first and fourth generation of geopolitical competitions underline the primacy of hard power calculations and behaviors in relational relations, second and third generation of geopolitics tend to put more emphasis on soft power. Critical geopolitics would on the other hand say that it is not easy to separate hard power from soft power and states employ a mix of all power capabilities and relations in their efforts to justify their geopolitical view and claims. That said, a brief discussion on the concept of power would be meaningful in this context.

The concept of power is one of the most popular and elusive concepts in the academic discipline of International Relations (Nye, 2011). To many, power is the ability of one actor to influence the behavior, interests and identity of other actors in the image of its own priorities, preferences and values. Put differently, power is the ability of one actor to get what it wants from others. The crux of the issue here is to define from where this ability comes and whether one can measure it. This suggests that power has both residual and relational aspects. Power is residual because being powerful requires a particular state to possess both some capabilities, of both tangible and intangible sorts, and the will to use them in order to have an impact on others. Without those capabilities at the first instance and the will in the background, it is nearly impossible to influence others. Tangible sources are those that can be quantified, measured, observed and categorized. Such sources are military capability, economic might, geographical location, population number, human development, technological prowess, environmental factors, and etc. Intangible sources of power are those that cannot be easily observed, tested or measured. Values, norms, societal cohesion, culture, image and identity are typical examples of intangible power capabilities.

Power is also relational because for power to exist there needs to be at least two actors interacting with each other. For example, if the state B does not meet the demands of the state A or change its behaviors along the expectations of the State A, the state A does not have power over the state B. Possessing mere power capabilities and the will to use them does not automatically translate into being powerful. Being powerful requires the compliance of others with the demands of the state that tries to have an impact on their choices.

As also understood from the information given, the answer is E. All of the statements in the options related to power and geopolitics are correct.

Not all states are willing to have an influence on the choices of others. Some states are defined as status-quo oriented powers whereas some others are considered to be as status-seekers or status-quo changers. Status-quo oriented states are those that are content with the current power configuration in the system and they do not aspire to change it. They are merely concerned with their existing status within the system and want to make sure that it continues. Their foreign policies most of the time begin and end at their national borders. They are generally risk-averse states. Rather than act, they react to external developments. They are not concerned with how other states are ruled internally and act externally. In their imaginations the number one foreign policy interest/priority is to make sure that external developments do not affect their internal order and current position within the system negatively. Even though many of such states can be found at fringes of international politics, it is extremely difficult to put a particular state into this category because even the status-quo oriented states have to play by the rules of power politics and engage others instrumentally to protect what they possess at a given time.

As also understood from the information given, the answer is E. All of the statements in the options related to status-quo oriented states are correct.

Not all states are willing to have an influence on the choices of others. Some states are defined as status-quo oriented powers whereas some others are considered to be as status-seekers or status-quo changers. Status-quo oriented states are those that are content with the current power configuration in the system and they do not aspire to change it. They are merely concerned with their existing status within the system and want to make sure that it continues. Their foreign policies most of the time begin and end at their national borders. They are generally risk-averse states. Rather than act, they react to external developments. They are not concerned with how other states are ruled internally and act externally. In their imaginations the number one foreign policy interest/priority is to make sure that external developments do not affect their internal order and current position within the system negatively. Even though many of such states can be found at fringes of international politics, it is extremely difficult to put a particular state into this category because even the status-quo oriented states have to play by the rules of power politics and engage others instrumentally to protect what they possess at a given time.

On the other hand, some states have a much broader definition of national interests. Such states tend to have aspirations transcending their national orders. They are risk-takers in that they try to help bring into existence a new power configuration within the existing system so that they find themselves in a much better and prestigious position than before. Whereas some status-quo changer states are only concerned with having an impact on foreign policy behaviors of other states, some others would be very much preoccupied with the projection and promotion of their values and norms onto others. The status-quo changer states prioritizing foreign policy behaviors of others would primarily focus on increasing their material power capabilities vis-a-vis others. At stake for them is the material distribution of power capabilities within the system at a given time. The status-quo changer states trying to project their values and norms onto others would on the other hand be profoundly concerned with the normative foundations of the system. They would hold that their power over others would positively vary with their ability to help transform them in the image of their values and norms. In this sense, status-quo changer states of this kind are all normative powers in that they try to achieve their goals by projecting and expanding their norms onto others.

As also understood from the information given, the answer is E. All of the statements in the options related to status-quo changer states are correct. All great powers, such as the United States, China, Russia and the European Union, are normative powers. The countries that wish to have regional spheres of influence are also within this camp. For example, following its ascendance to the top position of international power hierarchy, the United States has put the transformation of international politics in line with American values and standards at the center of its foreign policy. Similarly, the ongoing discussions on rising powers make it explicitly clear that those states are status-quo changer states because they put a strong challenge to the privileged position of western actors within the existing global order, both materially and normatively.

According to Montevideo Convention which sets out the parameters of a state spells out four aspects for a political entity to be properly called a state: defined territory, permanent people, centralized authority and sovereignty.

Among other things, the natural resources, proximity or remoteness to conflict areas, the climatic characteristics, neighborhood with prosperous or politically stable (or unstable) nations are all factors that contribute to the geopolitical inventory. Some of these factors might be controllable or changeable through implementation of certain policies, especially by use of innovative tools in this age of information and globalization whereas some others remain as constant and unchangeable. Innovative strategies, for instance, might be devised to make better use of natural resources which could be made an integral part of a coherent policy of industrialization and development. On the other hand, geopolitical disadvantages associated with being located in a fairly precarious area might be addressed by a constructive policy vis-à-vis the neighboring states.

The nation state played a central role in international politics throughout the 19th and 20th centuries.

During the Cold War period, the term has been associated with the military strategies and redefined in reference to military objectives which had to bear significance in terms of geopolitical significance.

The traditional definitions and interpretations of geopolitics have been replaced by more comprehensive and integrated approaches which included cultural, religious, economic and social elements as tools of geopolitical discussions. In a sense, such approaches meant distancing from the geography as an analytical tool.

There has been no change in the physical geography of the states in the aftermath of the Cold War which brings about a wave of transformations in many areas. Political geography remained unchanged whereas significant alterations have been observed in modes of international cooperation, agreements and power relations that have great impact upon the geographical status and geopolitical position. In other words, the efficiency of power circles and regional powers changed.

Geopolitics as a discipline has enriched the debates in this new era. Attention has been diverted to discussions on the usefulness of the ideologies simply because the Cold War era was seen as a clear outcome of ideological clashes. In this environment and climate, geopolitics has a lot to offer since ideology is considered irrelevant in most cases.

The classical geopolitics places emphasis upon the deterministic nature of geography and supports that the field focuses on space, land, water and outer space because these are the vital elements for the political supremacy in the world.

The term human security holds a political connotation and reference to human beings which should be taken into consideration as subjects of a political framework. In other words, the term itself stresses that human beings have become a geopolitical concern and that the community of states have taken measures to address this concern by offering strong protections for the individuals in cases where their survival is threatened just because the states have been recognized as sovereign entities in world politics.

Russia pursued a policy in reference to infrastructure from the Soviet era for some countries and under this policy, some countries have been supported and favored whereas some others have been punished. Russia sold natural gas to Armenia, Belarus and Ukraine under Kuchma administration at a subsidized price whereas attempted to use the energy as a means of punishment against Georgia, Moldova, Baltic states and Ukraine under Yuschenko administration.

Roman philosophers focused mainly on the relationship between nature and human beings as in ancient Greece, using geographical circumstances for the benefit of the state, and in some sense geostrategic considerations in relation to occupying lands and even uniting nations under one political administration.

Ratzel is the first theorist who introduced and used space and location as a means of analyzing the state. His theory of state was based on the organic state idea that accordingly suggests that states are living organisms which are born and have to grow. For a state, to grow a sufficient life-space (lebensraum) is imperative, therefore in order to grow, states have to expand by changing existing borders. Lebensraum was defined by Ratzel as the geographical surface area required to support a living species at its current population size and as population grew it had to expand.

In 1904 Halford Mackinder published his article “The Geographical Pivot of History” (Mackinder, 1904) which represents the birth of political geography. He introduced a number of key elements and concepts within his theory, one of which is the “heartland”.

According to Kjellen, geopolitics is one of the main disciplines to understand and analyze the state. Other disciplines were ekopolitik for the analysis of the economic structure of the state, demopolitik (etno) which is for population analyses, Sociopolitiks for analyzing the state-society relations and finally kratopolitiks for governmental constitutional politics.

Containment, according to Kennan, is the “application of counter-force at a series of constantly shifting geographical and political points, corresponding to the shifts and maneuvers of Soviet policy”

The domino theory essentially was based on the idea that if one country in a region came under the influence of communism, then the surrounding countries would follow it in a domino effect. It was first suggested in 1947 by William Bullit (Cohen, 2015: 29) and was adapted in policies of the Kennedy and Nixon administrations.