EUS-201 European Geography Lecture 12 EUS-201 European Geography James Leigh University of Nicosia (Tracy Bucco)

World Hegemony and “World Island” Geopolitics James Leigh University of Nicosia EurAsia: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0908/S00096.htm

Lecture’s reading handout Bordonaro, F. (2009) Rediscovering Spykman, Exploring Geopolitics, May, http://www.exploringgeopolitics.org/Publication_Bordonaro_Federico_Rediscovering_Spykman_Rimland_Geography_Peace_Foreign_Policy.html

“World Island” is Eurasia Japan Russia U.K. HEARTLAND Germany France China Turkey Cyprus Iran Israel Iraq India Saudi Arabia EurAsia: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0908/S00096.htm

Spykman’s Rimland http://www.oldenburger.us/gary/docs/TheColdWar.htm

Introduction Nicholas Spykman had a insightful worldview that few men ever develop His “World Island” Rimland geopolitics can greatly enhance our worldview to understand the history and portent of world events http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/about/bios/GlennGallery_2.html

Purpose To interpret the relevance of the Eurasian Rimland geopolitics, of Nicolas Spykman, to the modern world, and its pursuit of world government. http://www.globalresearch.ca/coverStoryPictures/13070.jpg

Nicholas Spykman Yale University Professor Died 49 years old – 1943 His last book (1944) compiled (from his lecture notes and maps) by his research assistant Helen Nicholl. Part of the Mackinder (Heartland), Mahan (Naval power) and Spykman (Rimland) triad.

Their Difference Mackinder: Spykman: He who controls Eastern Europe rules the Heartland [a natural fortress and resource] He who rules the Heartland rules the World Island He who rules the World Island rules the world. Spykman: He who controls the Rimland [of air and maritime power] rules the Eurasia He who rules Eurasia controls the destinies of the world. (Spykman, 1944, p. 43) http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6423 http://www.oldenburger.us/gary/docs/TheColdWar.htm

Heartland Topography Topography of Heartland: http://www.princeton.edu/~humcomp/map1.jpg

Nicholas Spykman (1893-1943) & Rimland Control of Rimland  control the Heartland Rimland must be a land and sea power Gives maritime barrier to Eurasia Eurasia resources are available and protected Controls VIP shipping lanes and chokepoints Amalgamates Europe (Germany) and Asia (Russia, China and Japan) Encircles North America http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6423

Spykman’s view Spykman examined the geopolitical factors that influenced the behavior, and affected the security, of the great powers He saw geography as quintessential and stated that the “geographic characteristics of states are relatively unchanging and unchangeable” (Spykman, 1938, p. 29) He considered geopolitical effect of: Size (must be infrastructured and governed or it can lead to weakness) Location (most important)

World framework Landmasses Three islands Five water bodies Eurasia North America Three islands South America Africa Australia Five water bodies South Polar Sea North Polar Sea Indian Ocean Pacific Ocean Atlantic Ocean 2 4 5 3 1 www.naturalhistoryonthenet.com/Continents/mainpage.htm

Four world power Spheres: US, Europe, Moscow, Japan Moscow over Heartland Europe over E Atlantic Japan over Far East USA over the Americas Europe over Indian Ocean US most favored location, access to all world, east and west, but protected by oceanic buffer (Spykman, 1938, p. 43) www.naturalhistoryonthenet.com/Continents/mainpage.htm

Types of States Land oriented – (France, Germany, Russia with armies) Island – (US, UK, Japan – naval powers and colonizers) Dual states – both land and sea frontiers (China, Italy) Spykman said a state’s foreign policy must deal with geographic facts. “It can deal with them skillfully or ineptly; it can modify then; but it cannot ignore them. For geography does not argue. It simply is.” He saw nation states as “struggling power organisations” (1938, p.236) “… All states have a tendency to expand” and as the centres of power change new political realities appear (Spykman and Rollins, 1939a, p. 39)

National expansion Often along rivers: (Egypt – Nile; Mesopotamia – Tigris, Euphrates; China – Hoang Ho; America – Mississippi) Landlocked states seek maritime access: (Babylon and Assyria – Mediterranean; Balkan powers – Adriatic; Russia – ice-free ports) Islands expand to mainland or colonize: (British Empire; Japan into East Asia) Circumferential and transmarine expansion: (Greece – Aegean; Rome – Mediterranean) Expand or control frontiers: (Russia, Germany, Roman Empire) (Spykman and Rollins, 1939b, p. 602) http://northbritain.wordpress.com/2008/10/02/us-shocked-by-scottish-independence/

League of Nations Spykman and Rollins were critical of the League to deal with the expansionist policies of Germany, Italy and Japan. They did not expect a change in the policies of these aggressive nations, “there sees to be no reason to assume or expect that these behavior patterns of states will suddenly change of disappear” (Spykman and Rollins, 1939b, p. 602).

US: Grand Strategy & Statesman Develop war and peace strategy based on ideal position of US: In the middle of Asia and Europe He saw world politics as anarchic, with each state acting out of self interest, in the absence of a world governing authority – in short each state was struggling for power among other states (Spykman, 1942, pp. 8, 17, 18)

Composition of a State for Power Size Nature of its territory and frontiers Population Raw materials possessed and produced Economic and technological development Political stability National spirit Military power Power level of potential enemies States can only survive by vigilant “devotion to power politics” (Spykman, 1942, p. 18) http://www.infobarrel.com/Media/Fat_Man_Nuclear_Bomb_Mushroom_Cloud

Struggle for Power Spykman saw the struggle for power could only be met by continually seeking power through: Alliances and weapons race All other means He said war is unpleasant but inherent in the world of sovereign nation states and to forget that invites disaster And so he argues war in the 20th century was waged militarily, politically, economically, and ideologically – “total war”. (Spykman, 1942, p. 24) http://www.fahad.com/2006/03/common-remotely-operated-weapons.html

Weak Europe – Strong USA Spykman said: “Because there was never a United Europe [in recent times] to gainsay [the USA] and because no single European state ever obtained sufficient freedom of action to throw its whole military weight into a struggle in [the Western] hemisphere” the US had achieved its manifest destiny. European nations “were of necessity concerned with the balance of power in Europe and their own territorial security than with the power relations on the American continents” (Spykman, 1942, p. 66)

Britain balances Europe Spykman saw: That Britain had maintained some balancing of the power in Europe as Britain opposed whatever threatened to upset the balance of power on the continent Britain historically fostered coalitions of European powers to defeat hegemonic ambitions of for example: Hapsburgs, Louis XIV, and Napoleon. However Britain needed non-European (US) power and help to defeat Kaiser Wilhelm and later Hitler. Germany by the build up to WWII “had destroyed the power foundations of the political structure of Europe” Europe no longer had a self-contained geopolitical system which could balance itself (Spykman, 1942, p. 114)

German geopolitical vision Spykman understood the implications for U.S. security of Germany’s challenge to the European balance of power, and was also familiar with German geopolitical writings published by Karl Haushofer [a corruption of Mackinder] and associates at Munich’s Institute of Geopolitik. Spykman said of the German geopolitical vision: “The European land mass from the North Sea to the Ural Mountains will be organized on a continental basis as the economic heart of the great ‘living space’ and the foundation of the war potential for the inter-continental struggle for power. The Near East, which controls the routes to the Indian Ocean and contains the oil on which European industrial life depends, will be integrated, economically and politically, in the form of semi-independent states controlled from Berlin” (Spykman, 1942, p. 121). Africa would be economically colonized and politically controlled by Germany, as a cornucopia of raw materials and connection to South America across the Atlantic. If Germany consolidates control of the European continent and defeated GB, it would have powerful access to Western Hemisphere and the US. So the US in 1942 had to forcefully reintroduce the balance of power in Europe (Spykman, 1942, p. 128) In short Germany was planning to be the world hegemon.

US & transpacific zone Spykman saw US Pacific presence to balance the power was vital and the US acquired: Hawaii Philippines Guam For this influence in Asia, powerful and engaging US relationships were to fostered with: China Japan Russia However Japanese designs after WWI led to growing influence from that country upsetting the Asian balance of power Japan expanded in Asia as Germany expanded in Europe [creating a threat to AngloSaxon dominance] (Spykman, 1942, p. 146)

Heartland & maritime highway In 1800s once Russia was established in the heartland it sought to break through the ring of bordering states to the ocean But was thwarted by the naval power – UK For Spykman the waterway region around Eurasia was a great maritime highway – vital for: Sea lanes Trade Oil from Middle East Access through overland routes to heartland http://www.oldenburger.us/gary/docs/TheColdWar.htm

Spykman on America in WWII If Germany and Japan upset the world balance of power this could strangle the US With technology the seas are not barriers but highways So the US should thwart any one nation being a hegemon in Asia and Europe No one power should be completely thwarted or dominate; thus to maintain the balance with Russia, Japan, China, Germany The US had to be active on two fronts: West and East He predicted that China would be difficult to stop from hegemonic status, so the US should keep alliance with Japan (Spykman, 1942, pp. 194, 195, 457, 460, 469)

Post WWII Spykman thought the same fundamental geopolitical power patterns would prevail after WWII These should guide the US in foreign policy Russia, China and Germany should be contained US and UK should keep dominant air and water access to Eurasia Strategic area of WWII would continue to be the same for the future No overwhelming powerful country or group should be allowed to build up to hegemony (Spykman, 1942, p. 461; 1944, p. 51) http://teacherweb.ftl.pinecrest.edu/snyderd/MWH/AP/APGeographers.htm

VIDEOS Overseas Military Stations of the EU: Geoipolitics in Eurasia: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sepGt5XE_2E&feature=player_embedded#! Geoipolitics in Eurasia: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vz6hQQsKyE&feature=related Add a comment to the course question: How are these geopolitical theories relevant for the EU today?

Conclusion: Spykman Against Spykman’s advice AngloSaxons have failed to contain the nations or keep the balance of power Germany, Russia, China, Japan, Islam (Middle East) are Flexing their new power and getting stronger Nuclear powers Grouping to take advantage against AngloSaxons (Leigh, 2009) Are we are on the cusp of civilization clash? Are civilizations about to push for world hegemony status

References Bordonaro, F. (2009) Rediscovering Spykman, Exploring Geopolitics, May http://www.exploringgeopolitics.org/Publication_Bordonaro_Federico_Rediscovering_Spykman_Rimland_Geography_Peace_Foreign_Policy.html (Handout supplied with the lecture). Holborn, H. (1966) The Political Collapse of Europe, NY, Alfred A. Knopf Leigh, J. (2009) Death of Nations in Civilization Clash, Nicosia, Afi Touch Editions, (2 copies in the HWAC library), Can be purchased online (15 €): http://jas4.webs.com/bookcivilizationclash.htm Sempa, F. Mackinder’s World, American Diplomacy, http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/AD_Issues/amdipl_14/sempa_mac1.html Spykman, N. and Rollins, A. (1939a) Geographic Objectives in Foreign Policy I, The American Political Science Review, XXXIII, 3, June. Spykman, N. and Rollins, A. (1939b) Geographic Objectives in Foreign Policy II, The American Political Science Review, XXXIII, 4, August. Spykman, N. (1942) America’s Strategy in World Politics: The United States and the Balance of Power, NY, Harcourt, Brace and Company. Spykman, N. (1944) The Geography of Peace, NY, Harcourt, Brace and Company.

(Tracy Bucco)