Geography Reference
In-Depth Information
negative connotation. For some decades after World War
II, the term was in such disrepute that few political geog-
raphers, even those studying power relationships, would
identify themselves as students of geopolitics. Time, along
with more balanced perspectives, has reinstated geopoli-
tics as a signifi cant fi eld of study, encompassing efforts to
understand the spatial and territorial dimensions of power
relationships past, present, and future.
Statements such as these are rooted in a particular
geopolitical perspective on the world—one that divides
the globe into opposing camps. That much may seem
obvious, as there are clear ideological fault lines between
an organization such as al-Qaeda and a state such as the
United States. But critical geopolitics seeks to move
beyond such differences to explore the spatial ideas and
understandings that undergird particular political per-
spectives and that shape policy approaches.
One of the most powerful geopolitical ideas since
Samuel Huntington published The Clash of Civilizations
and the Remaking of World Order in 1996 posits an “Islamic
World.” September 11, 2001 amplifi ed the idea of a threat-
ening Islamic realm. The U.S. government, concerned
about al-Qaeda's infl uence in the Islamic World, justifi ed
military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. The idea of
a unifi ed “Islamic World” appears in the words of com-
mentators on 24-hour news channels. The problem with
such conceptions is that the “Islamic World” is tremen-
dously diverse, culturally, and religiously, and some of
the most intractable confl icts of recent times have been
fought within the Islamic World. Belief in or fear of a uni-
fi ed “Islamic World” is not any more rational than belief
in or fear of a unifi ed “Christian World.” Regardless, if
geopolitical ideas are believed, they shape the policies
that are pursued and how we perceive what happens on
the ground. An important task for geographers, then, is to
understand the ideological roots and implications of geo-
political reasoning by intellectuals of statecraft.
Critical Geopolitics
Rather than focusing their attention on predicting and
prescribing, many current students of geopolitics focus on
revealing and explaining the underlying spatial assumptions
and territorial perspectives of international actors. Political
geographers Gearoid O'Tuathail and John Agnew refer to
those actors in the most powerful states, the core states, as
“intellectuals of statecraft.” The basic concept behind criti-
cal geopolitics is that intellectuals of statecraft construct
ideas about geographical circumstances and places, these
ideas infl uence and reinforce their political behaviors and
policy choices, and then affect what happens and how most
people interpret what happens.
O'Tuathail has focused particular attention on Ameri-
can geopolitical reasoning—examining speeches and state-
ments by U.S. intellectuals of statecraft. He has drawn atten-
tion to how several American leaders often spatialize politics
into a world of “us” and “them.” Political leaders can shape
how their constituents see places and organize international
space in their minds. By drawing on American cultural
logic and certain representations of America, O'Tuathail
argues that presidents have repeatedly defi ned an “us” that
is pro-democracy, independent, self-suffi cient, and free and a
“them” that is in some way against all of these things.
During the Cold War, President Ronald Reagan
coined the term Evil Empire for the Soviet Union and
represented the United States as “the shining city on a
hill.” During ensuing presidencies, terrorism replaced the
Soviet Union as the “they.” Sounding remarkably similar,
Democratic President William J. Clinton and Republi-
can President George W. Bush justifi ed military actions
against terrorists. In 1998, President Clinton justifi ed
American military action in Sudan and Afghanistan as a
response to terrorist plans by Osama bin Laden by noting
that the terrorists “come from diverse places but share a
hatred for democracy, a fanatical glorifi cation of violence,
and a horrible distortion of their religion, to justify the
murder of innocents. They have made the United States
their adversary precisely because of what we stand for and
what we stand against.” Immediately after September 11,
President George W. Bush made a similar claim, argu-
ing that “They [the terrorists] stand against us because
we stand in their way.” In 2002, President Bush again
explained, “I've said in the past that nations are either with
us or against us in the war on terror.”
Geopolitical World Order
Political geographers study geopolitical world orders,
which are the temporary periods of stability in the way
international politics is conducted. For example, during
the Cold War, the geopolitical world order was bipolar—
the Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact satellites versus
the United States and its close allies in Western Europe.
In the past, after a stable geopolitical world order broke
down, the world went through a transition, eventually set-
tling into a new geopolitical world order. Noted political
geographers Peter J. Taylor and Colin Flint argue that at
the end of World War II, fi ve possible orders could have
emerged among the three major powers, the United King-
dom, the United States, and the Soviet Union. Each could
have created its own bloc with its own allies; the three could
have come together under the United Nations; or three
possible alliances could have occurred—the United States
and USSR against the UK, the United States and the UK
against the USSR, or the UK and USSR against the United
States. What emerged was the bipolar world order of the
Cold War: the United States and the UK against the USSR.
After the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, the world
entered a transition period, again opening up a var
iety of
different geopolitical possibilities. Some politicians spoke
Search WWH ::




Custom Search