Prisoners of Geography

 Prisoners of Geography 

Author: Tim Marshall 

 

Preview:- Geography, has to a great extent, determined the historical course of events, the present national borders, national rivalries, and culture. A great deal of history has been shaped by the need for resources and secure borders anchored to geographical features like mountains, rivers, deserts etc. But, what about the future? Does geography hold any relevance in the age of technology and advanced weaponry? In this book, the author explores the undeniable impact of geography in shaping the past to bring about the present and throws light on its continued role in charting the future course of international affairs in the 21st century.  

 

About the Author:- Tim Marshall is an Englishman from Leeds who has been the diplomatic editor of Sky News and has also served as a war photographer during the Balkan Wars of 1990’s in Kosovo and Bosnia. His vast experience in international affairs reporting and live coverage of wars form the bedrock of the insights articulated in this book.  

 

Geography is the stage on which the theatrical play called history transpires. Great people and extraordinary events are all circumscribed by the limitations imposed by geography.  

 

As it was for the past, so it would be for the future 

In the 21st Century, the era of supersonic fighter jets and intercontinental ballistic missiles, one might think that the geography of nations has ceased to play a role in geopolitics. However, this is patently false. A cursory look at the humiliation suffered by the British Empire, the Soviet Union, and most recently, the Americans in the mountainous regions of Afghanistan, in three successive centuries (19th, 20th, 21st) shows how Mother nature can still bend the mightiest empires to her will.  

The very word, “geopolitics” used for international political affairs reveals the continued relevance of geography in determining the foreign policy of nations.  For example, why have India and China never fought any significant wars bar the short 1962 border war?  

 

India and China have very little in common. Their cultures, political ideologies, friends and foes, views of the future, leadership are nothing like each other. Moreover, they each seek resources and places that the other side controls.  

 

India chaffs at the Chinese control of the holy sites of Mount Kailash and the Mansarovar Lake. It has always been unhappy about the Chinese occupation of Tibet. China, for its part, desires to gain control of the Tawang region and all of Arunachal Pradesh, which it calls South Tibet.  

Usually, for most nations, these factors would be more than sufficient to fight several wars over, especially when one considered the Chinese belligerence with regards to ensuring their sovereignty and perceived historical boundaries, real or imagined. Both countries also have large standing armies and modern equipment, so the lack of military will is obviously not an issue.  

The issue, actually, is 6,000 meters tall, almost 4,000 kms long and quite frigid. The mighty Himalayan Range! 

The Himalayas rightly referred to as the “Great Wall of India”, is the frame that defines the Indian subcontinent. It is the sentinel, which guards India from the frigid winds of Central Asia and from foreign invaders, especially from the Chinese side.  

The challenge posed by the Himalayas to supply lines is an important reason for the Chinese withdrawal from the Indian Northeast, which they had captured in the 1962 war. The Chinese are trying to reduce this advantage by building railroads and roads up to the Indian border, but even then, extended operations against India, across the Himalayas are going to be incredibly difficult. For this reason, a protracted war against India, could result in disaster for the Chinese, as their forces are worn down by the collapse of overextended supply lines. The reverse, an Indian assault into Tibet, is rendered impossible for the same reasons.  

Hence, in spite of their differences, the Chinese and Indians are left with no choice but to patch up relations as best as possible via diplomacy. Geography in the form of the lofty Himalayas dictates their foreign policy to this day.  Similar roles were played by Geography throughout the course of history, all around the world and will continue to be played in the future as well.  

In this quid, you will learn,  

1. Why Russia annexed Crimea from Ukraine even at the cost of international sanctions 

2. Why China wants the islands of the South China Sea 

3. Why China captured Tibet and Xinjiang 

4. How the United States is the most blessed country thanks to geography  

5. Why there are so many conflicts in the Middle East 

 

Russia has always focused on the existence of buffer regions to its west, a vast hinterland to the east, and a warm water port for trade 

 

Russia is the largest country in the world. It was not always so. The story of Russia did not even begin in Russia itself but rather in modern-day Ukraine. The Kievan Rus, centered in Kiev, the capital of Ukraine, was the first real state to come up in Russia.  

The Mongol invasions put an end to Kievan Rus in the 13th Century. The subsequent rise of the Muscovite kingdom in Moscow in the 14th century saw the gradual expansion of Russia. Under Ivan the Terrible, Peter the Great and Empress Catherine, Russia expanded from its European core around Moscow, into Siberia and all the way to the Pacific in the East, the Baltic and Arctic Sea in the West and North, and the Black and the Caspian Sea in South.  

From the start, the Russian doctrine has been to expand its boundaries. The reasons are simple. The core of Russia is the Western part in Europe, which is 25% of its total area but houses 75% of the population and most of its industries and agricultural lands. However, the West is indefensible.  The reason is the North European plain, a vast and wide flatland stretching from France to the Urals deep in Russia. Near the borders of Russia, the plain expands in size to almost 2,000 miles. It has no geographical features like mountains or wide rivers against which defenses can be anchored. This meant that the Russian army, however vast, would be forced to either lose territories in face of an invasion from the West in order to protect Moscow, or spread its forces thin in order to defend all territories at once. The latter is as good as military suicide.  

Hence, the Russians have favored defense in depth. They would defend Moscow only (sometimes even it was abandoned) and draw enemies deep into Russia without posing much of a direct challenge. When enemy supply lines collapse due to overstretching themselves, the Russians would counterattack in full force and win. This is how the Russians managed to destroy Napoleon’s massive army in 1812 and annihilate the Nazis in WW2.  

The success of this strategy depends on two things. Firstly, it requires the control over Siberia. This vast mineral-rich land is almost assailable from the West due to the Urals and from the East due to its vast size and inhospitable climate and treacherous terrain. It is Russia’s citadel.  

The second part requires control over Ukraine, Belarus, the Baltic States, and most importantly, Poland. For at Poland, the North European plain it at its narrowest, that is only 300 miles. Russia can defend itself by placing an army here. Control over Baltics ensures protection from the Baltic Sea and control over Ukraine ensures protection from the Black Sea and a warm water port, Sevastopol for trade.  

 

Historically, Russia has managed both. But, since the fall of the USSR in 1991, Russia has looked on in dismay as Poland, Romania, the Baltic states and many other East European states join its archrival NATO.  However, Russia draws the line when it comes to states bordering it joining NATO. In 2008, the Georgians tried it and were invaded.  Hence, in 2014, when Russia learned that a pro EU and pro NATO president was to be elected in Ukraine it intervened. Russia could not afford to lose access to Sevastopol, in Crimea, Ukraine, which it used as a naval base and trade hub.  

The capture of Crimea was a warning to NATO to leave Ukraine alone, or else risk war. The West did what Russia expected. It condemned the annexation of Crimea, imposed sanctions, sent troops to the Baltics, but, ultimately, backed off from Ukraine.    

Hence, even today, the imperatives that drove Russia to expand remain valid. Because of this, Russia will always keep a wary eye on its Western borders and try to influence nations bordering it for its safety.  

China’s need to expand, on land and sea, through military or economic means, draws from its historical experience of being attacked 

 

The Chinese are the inheritors of one of the oldest civilizations in the world. It is a glorious past but also an unspeakably bloody one. The Chinese have faced attacks from all sides in this long period. The Huns, Mongols, and Manchus from the North; the Japanese Empire from the East; the Europeans from the South; and the Tibetans from the West have all invaded China.  

To avoid repeating the past, the Communist Party of China has sought to build a vast buffer zone from the Chinese heartland contained between the Huang He and the Chang Ze rivers in the East and the Pearl River Delta in the South.  

It embarked on this project right from the birth of Modern China in 1949. Involvement in the Korean War ensured a friendly North Korea as a buffer to the East. Annexation of Tibet and Xinjiang in addition to the humiliation of India in 1962 ensured that India would never threaten China by becoming friendly with Tibet. It also gained China a vast amount of minerals to drive its future growth and control over the sources of its main rivers that feed a billion people.  

Control over Inner Mongolia and Manchuria in the North and Northeast ensured a buffer against Russia. Landlocked Outer Mongolia was left independent to act as another buffer state that China controls as a virtual puppet.  

The two final parts of China’s grand strategy will be to secure itself in the South China Sea and the East China Sea and then to form a global alliance to extend its power over the world.  

 

China wants to build a string of island bases as “unsinkable aircraft carriers” in the South China Sea. These islands would house massive missile bases and airbases to deter American, Japanese and Indian fleets. China sees the South China Sea as its property and points to history to prove its claims.  

In the East China Sea, China seeks to control Taiwan, which it considers a rebellious province, the Senkaku islands controlled by Japan and eventually Okinawa in the Ryukyu Islands of Japan. This would ensure unfettered access to the Pacific, which is currently limited by Japan.  

China is also moving to protect its trade routes that are its lifelines. 50% of Chinese trade and energy resources pass via the narrow Strait of Malacca near Indonesia, Singapore and Malaysia, all countries that are friendly with the US. In a war, the US can impose a blockade on the straits to bring China to its knees. 

In addition, to charm the South East Asian nations with lavish investments, China seeks to build the Kra canal in Thailand to bypass the straits and is building pipelines and ports in Myanmar and Pakistan to safeguard its oil supply.  

The belt and road initiative is another step to ensure Chinese security by binding countries to it economically. Its investments in Africa and Latin America are intended to ward off Western influence, gain resources, and eventually to build military bases there, just as America once did.  

 

The present position of the USA is a result of its favorable location and geography. The same factors that ensured its rise also ensure its continued status as a superpower for the near future 

 

“The Americans are a very lucky people. They're bordered to the north and south by weak neighbors, and to the east and west by fish.”- Otto Von Bismarck, Chancellor of the German Empire. 

 

The quote of Bismarck above, lucidly explains how secure the USA is. It has two oceans to protect it and two neighbors that are weak and/or allied to it. Historically it has meant that once the USA had reached the West Coast (the Pacific), its rise to superpower status was only a matter of time.  

In addition to security, the US also controls exceptionally productive agricultural lands in the mid-west. It has a huge river, the Mississippi in its heartland, for the cheap and rapid transport of industrial goods and raw material. These factors ensured its rise as an agricultural and industrial giant.  

 

To these factors was added a copious amount of historical luck. The original thirteen colonies doubled, virtually without opposition, when Napoleon sold French Louisiana to finance his wars. Mexico, a potential power was beaten, and almost half of it occupied (California, New Mexico, Texas). The Russians sold Alaska to the Americans for a low price, thinking it was worthless. Later, vast amounts of oil and gold were found there.  

In the 21st Century, there is much talk of the US as a superpower in decline. This is completely false. Rather, it can be said that China is an emerging superpower.  

The reasons that ensured the rise of the US are still with it. Canada and Mexico are friendly and weak, the two oceans still exist on which sails the most powerful navy ever built, the fertile land, vast mineral resources, large educated population and the massive deposits of oil made viable for extraction by fracking technology will ensure that the US will survive even if all its allies forsake it. Of course, considering the fear of China and good relations with the US, most countries would rather do the opposite, aligning themselves ever closer to the Americans.  

Hence, American supremacy is far from dead and this will be true for much of this century too.  

 

The near continuous violence in the Middle East is a direct result of the colonial heritage  

 

The Middle East is a huge patchwork of tribes with customs, cultures and religious affiliations that are vastly different from each other. Relations between several tribes have never been cordial and continue to be so.  

Ordinarily, these tribes would be in different countries, however, due to two people, many such tribes inhabit the same countries. Meanwhile, the people from the same tribes and religious groups are split between several countries. This is the reason for all the chaos in the Middle East.  

The names of the two persons are Sykes and Picot, one British and the other French. Both of these men, in 1916, were in charge of deciding the future division of the territories of the Ottoman Empire, which was facing certain defeat in WW1, between their respective empires. 

In one short meeting, these people decided the fate of millions for more than a century to come. While drawing their lines to demarcate borders, they ignored natural geographical barriers and most importantly did not bother about the cultural and religious compositions of the people inhabiting the territories. As a result, groups with nothing in common were forced together while their kindred were ripped away. This was a recipe for disaster, and we are now witnessing the strings unraveling as violence grips the Middle East ripping nations asunder.  

 

A good example is Iraq, where the Kurds of the Northern Mountains resisted the control of the capital, Baghdad during Saddam’s reign and continue to defy the control of the current government. Meanwhile, the devastation of the Iraq war and the imposition of a Shia-led government in a Sunni Muslim country by the Americans engendered the rise of the Islamic State that also found roots in Syria, where another Shia led government rules over a Sunni majority. Rivers of blood have flowed ever since.  

All this violence could have been avoided had Syke-Picot consulted the Ottoman maps and the Arabs themselves before deciding the fates of millions of people with the stroke of a pen. The Ottomans had divided Iraq into three parts keeping in mind the three different groups and the geographical features:-  the Kurdish territories were in mountainous Mosul in the North, the Sunni territories were in the fertile Baghdad plains in the center and the Shia territories were in the coastal south, in Basra. Had Sykes-Picot divided the territories accordingly in Iraq, it might have been a peaceful region today. The same holds true for Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Yemen, and Libya, all of whom are victims of Sykes-Picot.  

Little wonder then that the Islamic State repeatedly hailed the death of the Sykes-Picot narrative while establishing their caliphate.  

Conclusion 

 Most stable modern nation-states are anchored to natural geographical borders. Those that do not have such borders or have had such borders arbitrarily imposed upon them like the Middle East, will fight to reach safe, defensible borders. Russia has depended on ensuring the possession of Siberia and control over a buffer zone consisting of Poland, the Baltic States, Ukraine and Belarus in order to secure its existence. These measures allowed it to prevail over Napoleon and Hitler.  

However, in the post-Cold War world, a weak Russia nervously saw NATO approaching its borders. Now, after Putin’s reforms, the Russians are determined to prevent NATO from coming any closer. There are prepared to use force to ensure it. After all, it is a matter of Russian survival.  

China, attacked from all sides in history has tried to build a vast buffer around its heartland. The annexation of Tibet, Xinjiang, Inner Mongolia and Manchuria and the assistance provided to the North Koreans have secured China’s land borders. Now, securing the sea approaches remain. The South China Sea dispute, Senkaku island dispute and the threats by China to Taiwan are all in pursuance of guarding the sea-lanes.  

 

The USA protected by two oceans, nurtured by fertile soil and minerals and a mighty river grew into a superpower. These same factors ensure its continued supremacy.  

 

The Middle East bleeds due to the hastiness of Sykes-Picot. They ignored history, geography, and culture while demarcating borders and hence, condemned the Middle East to violence and chaos.  

 

In the end, the fate of nations is to a great part guided by their geographical circumstances. Geography is the stage on which history was played and will remain the stage on which the future shall play out. Humans and states, the actors of the play, might struggle to escape its bounds, but they are its prisoners.