Tuesday, May 5, 2009 - 8:44 PM
My reaction to Robert D. Kaplan's Foreign Policy cover story, "The Revenge of Geography," can be summed up in the following joke:
Question: Why will Robert Kaplan never do well at Guitar Hero?
Answer: Because you can only go so far playing just one note.
Kaplan has been saying the same thing for fifteen years now. This paragraph from his FP essay encapsulates this point:
The ability of states to control events will be diluted, in some cases destroyed. Artificial borders will crumble and become more fissiparous, leaving only rivers, deserts, mountains, and other enduring facts of geography. Indeed, the physical features of the landscape may be the only reliable guides left to understanding the shape of future conflict. Like rifts in the Earth’s crust that produce physical instability, there are areas in Eurasia that are more prone to conflict than others. These “shatter zones” threaten to implode, explode, or maintain a fragile equilibrium. And not surprisingly, they fall within that unstable inner core of Eurasia: the greater Middle East, the vast way station between the Mediterranean world and the Indian subcontinent that registers all the primary shifts in global power politics.
Look, this is a good and important note, as anyone paying attention to Pakistan recently would attest. But let me dust off something I wrote about one of Kaplan's earlier books oh-so-many-years ago:
Kaplan discovers that countries with corrupt governments, stagnant economies, and short histories of statehood are falling apart. In other words, Kaplan looks only at failed states and concludes that all states are failing. He believes these trends can be generalized to the rest of the world, yet his own descriptions [in The Coming Anarchy] contradict him. In the countries where statehood has a longer tradition, such as Turkey, Iran, and Thailand, Kaplan finds a stronger state and a less fragmented populace. This observation severs the contagion effect Kaplan wants to ascribe to events in West Africa and Central Asia.
Kaplan believes in the power of geography to disrupt man-made institutions. He's right some of the time, and some of these cases are pretty important. In general, however, the state -- even supposedly weak states -- have proven to be remarkably resilient institutions.
I enjoyed your post very much because it does address several problems I had with Kaplan when I read his essay. However, I wished you would have elaborated more on his paragraph about Iran since I found it personally difficult to understand and comprehend. The idea of Iran's geology being the sole reason it is being courted by India and China, based presumably on its oil, is slightly difficult to accept.
I cannot help but think there are quite a few other reasons that Iran would have its "appeal". The fact it's quite pro-nuclear, antagonizes the US and seems to encourage others to do so (notably North Korea), does seem to imply it's a rogue state that demands attention not because it's a "strong and coherent state" but because it's dangerous and unpredictable. Although the oil is a major concern, I find it difficult to believe the idea of using Iran to irritate the U.S hasn't occurred in China and India's agenda.
As for the idea of weak states being resilient institutions; I cannot help but wonder how much these "weak states" were bolstered by outside aid. One notable example that comes to mind would be the US, whom does have a distinct history of bolstering and meddling with governments in outside countries. In this case, wouldn't geography be a moot point?
What Kaplan seems to have failed to address is the growing phenomenon of the instantaneous transfer of informational globally. With the rise of new technology, most notably computers and satellites, geographical boundaries are (or I should think so) becoming more and more irrelevant. The globalization of the economy also reduces the traditional routes of capital and credit, and I think it would be very difficult to predict further conflicts based solely on geography.
Overall though, I appreciate that you've called this essay into attention. It does address a lot of interesting points, and if it hadn't been for your post I would have skipped by it unknowingly.
Continue with the wonderful blog work!
- Karen Chen
Thank you you are GREAT
Daniel W. Drezner is professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University.
Read More
(2)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE