24 GEOPOLITICS OF RESOURCES

Dr Seema Mehra Parihar

epgp books

   

 

 

 

LEARNING OBJECTIVES:

 

After studying this unit you should be able to:

  • Understand the meaning of geopolitics
  • Explain the relationship between resource and geopolitics -Classify Resources from geopolitical perspective – List some resource disputes

 

KEYWORDS

 

Geopolitics, Imperialism, Hypothetical resource, Geopolitical strategy

 

 

UNDERSTANDING GEOPOLITICS

 

Definition of geopolitics

 

Figure 1: – Rudolf Kjellen

 

Geopolitics was first defined in 1899, as: “the theory of the state as a geographical organism or phenomenon in space”(Figure 1)

 

“This definition contains two elements that are crucial within the concept of geopolitics: power (influence, politics) and space (territory, soil). The central role for the state as only powerful entity is very typical for the definition of Kjellen, (KJELLEN 1916)”.

 

Figure 2: Saul Bernard Cohen

 

Cohen (Figure 2)said: “Geopolitics is the analysis of the interaction between, on the one hand, geographical settings and perspectives and, on the other hand, political processes both geographical settings and political processes are dynamic, and each influence and is influenced by the other. Geopolitics addresses the consequences of this interaction. The definition focuses on the dynamic interaction between power and space, Cohen,(2003)”.Whereas, “Geopolitics, the struggle over the control of spaces and places, focuses upon power. In nineteenth and early twentieth century geopolitical practices, power was seen simply as the relative power of countries in foreign affairs. In the late twentieth century, definitions of power were dominated by a focus on a country’s ability to wage war with other countries. However, recent discussions of power have become more sophisticated,Flint,2006”Fliont further highlights:“So how should we define geopolitics, in the contemporary world and with the intent of offering a critical analysis? Our goals of understanding, analyzing, and being able to critique world politics require us to work with more than one definition, Flint,2006.”

    Webster Dictionary defines Geopolitics as, “1) a study of the influence of such factors as geography, economics, and demography on the politics and especially the foreign policy of a state; 2) a governmental policy guided by geopolitics; 3) a combination of political and geographic factors relating to something (such as a state or particular resources) the geopolitics of oil” (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/geopolitics n.d.) The Penguin Dictionary of International relations defines Geopolitics as: “A method of studying foreign policy to understand, explain and predict international political behavior through geographical variables. These include area studies, climate, topography, demography, natural resources, and applied science of the region being evaluated” (Evans 1998).

 

CONCEPT OF GEOPOLITICS

 

     Kjellén was the Ratzel`s student and he elaborated the organic concept of state and evolved the term ‘Geopolitics’. He became the first to coin the term. He gave the theory of geopolitics that fuels on expansionism. The book “State as a Living Form, published in 1916’, outlines five key concepts that would shape German geopolitics: (figure 3) “1) Reich was a territorial concept consisting of Raum (Lebensraum), and strategic military shape; 2) Volk was a racial conception of the state; 3) Haushalt was a call for autarky based on land, formulated in reaction to the vicissitudes of international markets; 4) Gesellschaft was the social aspect of a nation’s organization and cultural appeal, Kjellén anthropomorphizing inter-state relations more than Ratzel had; and 5)Regierung was the form of government whose bureaucracy and army would contribute to the people’s pacification and coordination”.

 

Figure 3: Geopolitics – German school Johan Rudolf Kjellén (1864 – 1922)  The State as a Living Form, 1916   Five key concepts that would shape German

 

Geopolitical thinking from nationalistic and aggressive view-points produced much work in mapping new states and world orders. One of the most famous is the anonymously published book Germania Triumphans which described the expected global conflict as early as 1895 (Sandner 1989). In this utopian war scenario after its assumed beginning in 1903, first allied Germany and Italy defeat France. The result was the new political map of Europe. It is no secret that geographers were active members of imperialists circles. For example, in 1890 Ratzel founded a political party with enormous imperialistic aims including the maintenance of the dream of a great German empire. The Geo-political paradigm changed during the 19th century. From natural boundaries as contributing to the peace of nations to a Ratzelian paradigm of the struggle between expanding territories, with war as natural mechanism in the struggle for space (Schultz n.d.).

 

Stable peace, the term proposed by Kenneth implies removal of all probable cause of conflicts. It is no geographic accident that the rhetoric of Geopolitical peace coincides with the zones of wealth and surplus.

 

 

ESTABLISHING THE RELATION B/W RESOURCE AND GEOPOLITICS

 

“It is important to consider that the population of a state, its efficiency and effectiveness, without, at the same time, discussing the natural resources which are available for its use. People must have land on which to live and to grow their food. Almost all human food is derived directly from the soil, and its volume and quality depend directly on the extent and nature of the soil. The cultivable soil must then be regarded as a primary resource in the estimation of national power. Beneath the soil are minerals and some of these are important for human welfare and essential in national defense. A state which lacks the most important minerals or which has only small reserves may feel especially vulnerable. So, in order to be considered military power potential of the state, the resources must be developed.”, POUNDS

 

Thus, we find the cause and effect relationship between resources, their development and the power potential, and a state, with a higher degree of desirability of resource mobilization and development, acquires a greater amount of economic strength. Economic strength has always been an instrument of political power (Adhikari 2002).

FIGURE-4 : Relationship between Resource & Power

 

Stephen B. Jones defines resources within the context of Geopolitics as “anything a nation has, can obtain, or can conjure up to support its strategy… for resources are as tangible as soil, as intangible as leadership, as measurable as population, as difficult to measure as patriotism.”

 

RESOURCE AND THE POLITICS OF POWER

 

Figure 5: Power Shifts in the post-Cold-War Era

 

Global power has had share of shifts in the post-Cold-War era as depicted in figure 5. The shift has been from traditional military rivalries in the past to economic expansion and prowess in the contemporary world.. The paradigm, in part fueled by technological advances and the ferocious scale of globalization in recent decades, has highlighted the strategic advantages lent in particular by natural resources.

 

Today there are three prime interrelationships that are reshaping the global geopolitical landscape :

 

1. Foreign policies between the countries;

 

2. Economic Growth and related linkages

 

3.  Strategic boundary Issues

 

Rivalries within the countries are increasing and resulting in prolonged conflicts and civil wars in parts of Asia, Africa and Latin America. Growing rivalry among nations for access and control of resources and precious minerals is a reality today & is caused due to:

 

1. Diversity in the availability of natural resources like hydrocarbons, gold, uranium, diamonds, copper, zinc and rare earth minerals are now increasingly.

 

2. Increase in demand for natural resources and demand for energy in the era of rapid industrialization.

 

3.  Emergence of new markets and

 

4.  Depletion of natural resources at a disconcerting rate.

 

We all are aware of a fact that natural resources can critically mold foreign policies. Not only this, they can also be a major cause of enduring political ties. One of the major example of this is the Middle East region and its immense oil wealth , where for more than 50 years now through OPEC cartel :

 

a) Global Oil Supplies are getting controlled:

 

b) Production is getting manoeuvred; and

 

c) Oil Prices are being monopolized

 

Relevance of Natural resources

 

Relationships in Geopolitical Landscape is becoming ever more fragile(figure 6) . Some examp-loes are as follows:

 

Case 1: Resource: Nuclear Energy & Iran

 

“The West’s cautious approach with Iran over its controversial nuclear program is as much dictated by security concerns as economic. Tehran’s looming threat to close the Strait of Hormuz – the arterial passage out of the Persian Gulf for 40% of the world’s tanker-borne oil – amid mounting pressure to halt its ambitious nuclear program can potentially derail global markets, Nishtha,(2012)”.

 

 

Case 2: Resource_ Natural Gas Reserve & Russia

“Endowed with the world’s largest natural gas reserves, Russia enjoys a similar monopoly over regional energy trade and a vast web of pipeline networks. The biggest energy supplier to Europe, Russia has often been accused of manipulating prices, fixing transit fees and diplomatic arm-twisting to maximize political and financial gains, Nishtha,(2012)”.

 

 

Case 3: Resource_ Far-afield _Economic Foresight & China

 

“The quest for alternative sources and favorable access is, therefore, driving many growing economies to seek political and strategic partnerships far afield. China’s systematic large-scale investment strategy in Africa, a continent with vast reserves of oil, gold, coal, nickel, diamonds and copper, since the 1980s is now viewed as exemplary economic foresight. Although contentious and often accompanying allegations of neo-imperialism on Beijing’s part, the partnership has not only boosted growth in the world’s second largest economy, but also pumped over $100bn in jobs and infrastructural projects in the continent historically marred by conflicts, poverty and underdevelopment. Currently Africa’s largest trading partner, China has established special economic zones in Zambia, Egypt, Nigeria, Mauritius and Ethiopia (NISHTHA 2012)”.

 

 

CLASSIFICATION OF RESOURCES FROM A GEOPOLITICAL PERSPECTIVE

 

–  Power resources available immediately: – these includes active coal mines and factories which are actively producing object with immediate power potentials such as steel and chemical fertilizers.

 

 

–  Resource available only after activation: – among such resource would be stand by equipment and would include such plants which are in standby mode. The time required for production may vary from hours to days according the time required for warm up. These are the power potential reserved in stock for the state.

 

–  Resource available only after conversion: – An automobile factory can turn into a motor manufacturing system only when the required equipment is upgraded. Similarly, most factories producing consumer good may turn into factories producing power equipment.

 

 

–  Resources available only after development: – These include fuel reserves or ore deposits known to exists but awaiting the opening of mines or the construction of processing units. Such development may take several years; it is not uncommon for example for a coal mine to take 4 to 5 years to start operating. It is unlikely therefore that such resources would be taken in light before making any sorts of political decisions. The decision to resort to a war is most likely to be made only in the light of resources already in some phase of development. On the other hand, if the war shall last longer than the protagonists at first expected it to, it is likely that resources underdeveloped at that instance would be exploited at the conclusion.

 

 

–  Hypothetical resource: – Coal, petroleum, ore bodies and other resources whose existence is only presumed but not proved cannot be said to have any power value. No political authorities are likely to count on them unless careful investigation has raised the resource at least to the level of supra category.

 

 

RESOURCES AND NATIONAL STRATEGY

 

S.B. JONES makes the following discussion under four heads in the light of the power inventory and the strategic needs of the state and within the purview of the availability of the resources;

 

“1) The harmony of resources and national strategy

 

2)  The augmentation or reduction of resources by national strategy

 

3)  The allocation of resources in relation to national strategy and

 

4)  The relativity of power in the light of national strategies, Jones.”

 

The discussion is necessarily based on the philosophy that “so long there is politics among sovereign states, there will be estimation of power in the light of the required national strategy and the availability of the resources”.

 

  RESOURCE DISPUTES

 

The clear and precise boundaries between the states shown on the most political maps of the world give little hint of the widespread disjunction between patterns of effective state control and the territorial aspirations of the state leaders. The significance of this disjunction can be seen in the ubiquity of the interstate disputes over territories and resources. Over the past 45 years more than half of the world`s states have been involved in some kind of border or territorial disagreements with another state and over lapping territorial claims are at the heart of many of the major interstate conflicts of the 1980`s…including those between Iran and Iraq, India and Pakistan, Libya and Chad, Argentina and The U.K., and Israel and its neighbors.

 

“Resources have provided the means for the assertion of power of the imperialist power. State power is centric on the resource control mechanism. During the mercantilist period of the 15th century, trade and war became intimately linked to protect or interdict the accumulation ‘world riches’, mostly in the form of bullion enabled by progress in maritime transport and upon which much of the balance of power was perceived to depend (IAN.O.LESSER n.d.)””

 

 

Major geopolitical disputes over resources such as water and oil are as under: –

 

SOUTH CHINA SEA DISPUTES

 

FIGURE 7

(http://www.realinstitutoelcano.org/wps/portal/rielcano_en/contenido?WCM_GLOBAL_CONT EXT=/elcano/elcano_in/zonas_in/asia-pacific/ari60-2015-chinas-growing-assertiveness-in-the-south-china-sea n.d.)

 

China claims sovereignity in the south china sea on the basis of its hegemonical power. A map was released in a Chinese map in 1947 and proclaims its sovereignty rights over the marine resources. China claims it sovereign right over the marine resources under the following legal basis: (1) the 2009 note verbal to the UN Secretary General responding to the jointly submitted documents by Malaysia and Vietnam on the Outer Limit of the Continental Shelf; (2) the 2009 Preliminary Information Indicative of the Outer Limits of the Continental Shelf; and (3) the 2011 note verbal to the UN Secretary General responding to a Philippine note verbal.

 

 

The Philippines voiced a strong protest against China’s ‘aggressive action’. In response to the Philippine protest, China’s Defense Ministry Spokesman GengYansheng said: “China will resolutely oppose any militarily provocative behavior from other countries also claiming ownership of the Spratlys. Chinese military resolve and will to defend territorial sovereignty and protect our maritime rights and interests is firm and unshakeable”, clearly implying that China would be willing to use force to advance and protect its national sovereignty and territorial integrity and obviously reflected Beijing’s growingly assertive posture towards its sovereignty and maritime rights in the South China Sea. “Since 2014 China has stepped up the construction of artificial islands over the disputed Spratlys, causing an escalation of tensions in the South China Sea and attracting widespread attention. In October 2015, the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague issued a ruling that it had jurisdiction over the case filed in 2013 by the Philippines against China’s claims, but it has been boycotted by China (Durfee 2011)”.

 

The Teesta water dispute: –

 

Teesta river which originates in Himalaya flows through Sikkim and West Bengal to merge with Brahmaputra in Assam. This river is the most contested basin between Bangladesh and India. The river provides means of livelihood for people in Sikkim and Bangladesh. Teesta is called as lifeline of Bengal. The dispute is mainly on the sharing of water between India and Bangladesh of the Teesta river. Bangladesh has asked for an equitable solution for the according Ganga.

 

Water Treaty.

 

Figure 7 : Teesta River & related locations.

    1. DZONGU: The 315 long Teesta (tri-strota or three streams) originates from this glacier in Sikkim.

    2. RAMBHI: NHPC-Dam

    3. KALIJHORA: NHPC-Dam

    4. Teesta Canal : Water from the Teesta Barrage Project expected to cover 9.22 lack hectares in North Bengal

 

5. PHANSIDEWA : The water from Teesta Main canal also feeds a hydro project here.

   6. BANGLADESH: The neighbor depends on the Teesta waters especially for irrigation downstream during the dry December-March period

 

What is the Teesta Issue all about?

 

1. An agreement for the equal sharing of water on 50-50 basis was agreed by India and Bangladesh in 2013. “West Bengal government has been opposing the proposal as it fears that the sharing of water to such an extent with the lower riparian country would be havoc for the state especially in dry seasons”.

2. “Teesta River has an estimated annual flow of 60 billion cubic meters during the wet season and the monsoonal period while a scant rainfall during the dry season causes problems and conflict of water share between the internal and external population of the state”. Thus, the issue of equitable share of water resources become the hot issue for condensation.

3. The downstream location of Bangladesh is further an impediment to use the river of Teesta.

 

SUMMARY

  • Geopolitics was first defined in 1899, as: “the theory of the state as a geographical organism or phenomenon in space”. Geopolitics, the struggle over the control of spaces and places, focuses upon power.
  • A state which lacks the most important minerals or which has only small reserves may feel especially vulnerable. So, in order to be considered military power potential of the state, the resources must be developed.
  • Western geopolitical thinking about resources has been dominated by the equation of trade, war and power, at the core of which were overseas resources and maritime navigations.

 

you can view video on GEOPOLITICS OF RESOURCES

 

References

  • Adhikari, Sudeepta. 2002. Political Geography.
  • Cohen, Saul Bernard. 2003. Geopolitics of the World System.
  • Durfee, Don. 2011. ” ‘China Urges US to Stay Out of Sea Dispute’.” Reuters, 22/VI/2011.
  • Evans, G & Newnham, J. 1998. The Penguin Dictionary of International relations. london, UK: Penguin Books, London, Uk.
  • FLINT, COLIN. 2006. “Introduction to Geopolitics”. Routledge.
  • http://www.realinstitutoelcano.org/wps/portal/rielcano_en/contenido?WCM_GLOBAL_CON TEXT=/elcano/elcano_in/zonas_in/asia-pacific/ari60-2015-chinas-growing-assertiveness-in-the-south-china-sea.
  •  http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/the-hindu-explains-teesta-water-sharing/article17894299.ece.
  •  https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/geopolitics.
  • IAN.O.LESSER. n.d. RESOURCES AND STRATEGY.
  • KJELLEN. 1916. The State as a Living Form.
  • NISHTHA. 2012. https://www.fairobserver.com/region/north_america/geopolitics-natural-resources/.
  • Sandner, G. 1989. “Roots and effects of German political geography beyond geopolitik.” Political geography quarterly 8.
  • Schultz, H.D. n.d. “Geographische Zeitschrift.” 1-22.