Capítulo 3: Principales características de las acciones
6. Riesgo de las acciones
83 HAGAN, C. B. (1942). Geopolitics. The Journal of Politics. 4, 479. 84 TOAL, G. (1996). Critical Geopolitics...
51
politics as a constant struggle for survival in which the state was required to adapt itself to environmental conditions.85 The choices he foresaw were rather simple; a state must either grow or die just like any organism. Thus, Ratzel treated German people as an organism in desperate need for a living space. In his mind, it was the ultimate destiny of Germany to expand because it simply served a geographical organic need. Therefore, Ratzel called this a policy objective for the primacy of the German state.86 His ideas were later taken by Adolf Hitler and his Nazi accomplices.
One of the most well-known figures in classical geopolitics is Sir John Mackinder. He indeed developed geopolitics as a separate field of study and called for ―educating the citizens of the worldwide (British) Empire (how) to visualize distant geographical conditions.‖87 Mackinder‘s
utmost desire was to develop a theory to maintain Britain‘s imperial supremacy against rising continental powers like Germany and Russia. In today‘s terminology, Mackinder used geopolitics interchangeably with geo-strategy.
His address on ―The Geographical Pivot of History‖ whereby Mackinder hinted on his famous Heartland theory is important in the evolution of geopolitical thought. Beginning his analysis with an authoritarian claim that ―geography as a science of discovery and exploration is over‖,88 Mackinder combines history, geography and politics in order to promote a way of
seeing the world in its totality.89 He was more interested in relative gains rather than acquiring new territories90 because in the post-Colombian epoch virtually no part of the world remained unexplored.
85 PARKER, G. (1985) Western Geopolitical Thought in the Twentieth Century . New York: St. Martin’s Press. p.11-13. 86KEARNS G. Imperial, Geopolitics. Geopolitical Visions at the Dawn of the American Century in AGNEW, J. A.,
MITCHELL, K., & TOAL, G. (2003). A Companion to Political Geography. Malden, MA, Blackwell Publishers, p.176.
87 MACKINDER, H.J. (1907), “On Thinking Imperially”, Lectures on Empire, ed. SADLER, M.E., London, privately
printed, p. 37-38.
88 MACKINDER, H.J (1904). The Geographical Pivot of History, The Geographical Journal, Vol.23, No.4, p.34. 89 DODDS, K. (2007). P.122.
52
Mackinder saw the era of sea-powers coming to an end and with the advent of railroad transport, he stipulated that controlling an area of the world which he called Heartland was crucial in terms of global distribution of power and resources. In his mind, the Heartland which pretty much covered today‘s Eastern Europe and the landmass under Russian control in Euro-Asia held the key to global supremacy. He then divided the world into the ―pivot area, (Heartland), the inner crescent and the outer crescent‖. Thus came his famous dictum that ―who rules East Europe commands the Heartland, who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island, who rules the World-Island commands the world‖.91In his eyes, the doomsday
scenario for Europe would be an alliance between Russia, the pivotal land power and Germany, an emergent sea power. Thus, he propagated that a buffer zone, ―a tier of independent states between these two countries―92, must be established. This idea indeed
came to practical fruition during the 1919 Paris Peace Conference.
The significance of Mackinder‘s work lies, in the words of Toal, at ―its God‘s eye global view, its division of the globe into vast swaths of territory and its sweeping story of geography‘s conditioning influence on the course of history and politics‖.93 It was after all Sir Mackinder
who laid the foundations of modern day geopolitical imagination and visualization by establishing an image of the World as a whole in terms of time, space and development.
Major General and Prof. Dr. Karl Haushofer brought geopolitics to its zenith in continental Europe. He embraced Ratzel‘s organic state theory and argued that a state had the right to wage just wars to enhance its lebensraum. He called for expanding a state‘s territories to
91Ibid.
92 MACKINDER, H.J (1962). Democratic Ideals and Reality, ed., Pearce, A.J. (New York, W.W. Norton & Co., quoted in
HEE, R. (1998), World Conquest: The Heartland Theory of Halford J. Mackinder, Pointer: Journal of the Singapore Armed Forces, Vol. 24., No.3,
53
include people from similar and related cultures (pan-regionalism).94 An emphasis on autarky was also another strong suit in Haushofer‘s theory.95
The real refinement he brought into geopolitical reasoning was on borders as living organisms. Unlike the conventional understanding, he argued that all borders were dynamic and ever changing as a state searches for its lebensraum, autarky and pan-regionalism.96 To him, Mackinder‘s Heartland would provide Germany all it needed in this respect. The landmass of Eurasia-Africa which was the largest, most populous, and richest of its time, was exposed as the 'pivot' or centre of gravity of all human existence.97 With such an ambitious strategy calling for colonial acquisition and territorial growth, the ideas of Haushofer did not only serve as a strong inspirer but also a source of legitimization for Nazi policies. With regards to his academic imprint, it was indeed Haushofer‘s association with the Nazi war machinery that caused a pause in the evolution of geopolitics as a separate social discipline in international politics.
The Dutch-born American scholar Nicholas Spykman isknown for introducing European geopolitical thinking to the US. At a time when Wilsonian liberalism seemed triumphant across the Atlantic, Spykman told Americans that ―foreign policy is about power rather than ideals and the struggle for power is the real name for world politics.‖98 He also called for an end to isolationism and passivity in American foreign policy in the aftermath of World War I. As Spykman puts it, ―geography does not argue, it simply is‖99 thus making it impossible for a
state to escape from its geography. Spykman characterized the geographic location of a state as ―the most fundamental factor in its foreign policy.‖100 According to him, ―the full
meaning of a given location can be obtained only by considering the specific area in relation
94 HERWIG, H. H. (1999). Geopolitik: Haushofer, Hitler and Lebensraum. Journal Of Strategic Studies. 22, p.221. 95Ibid. p.226.
96Ibid. p.221. 97Ibid. p.128.
98 HOFFMAN, S. (1977). An American Social Science: International Relations, Daedalus, Vol. 106, No. 3, p.44. 99 SPYKMAN, N. J. (1938). Geography and Foreign Policy, II. The American Political Science Review. 32, p.236. 100 SPYKMAN, N. J. (1938). Geography and Foreign Policy, I. The American Political Science Review. 32, p.40.
54
to two systems of reference: a geographic system of reference from which we derive the facts of location, and a historical system of reference by which we evaluate those facts.‖101
Spkyman is also well known as the Rimland theorist. He identified the ―inner crescent‖ in Mackinder‘s theory as the ―Rimland‖, the geopolitical area holding the key to global domination as he explained;
“The Rimland of the Eurasian land mass must be viewed as an intermediate region, situated…between the heartland and the marginal seas. It functions as a vast buffer zone of conflict between sea power and land power. Looking in both directions, it must function amphibiously and defend itself on land and sea.”102
In his account, the maritime region around Eurasia is seen as ―the great circumferential maritime highway of the world.‖ The oceans, due to modern technology and advanced means of navigation and communication, are ―not barriers but highways.103 Hence his
formula was ―whoever rules the Rimland commands Eurasia, and whoever rules Eurasia commands the world.‖104