How will geopolitics develop in 21 century?
Considering the growing importance of energy for economy will energy geopolitics also grow in importance?
It is expected that the world will remain dependent, for this decade at least, on essentially the same forms of energy, oil and natural gas. At the same time, the consumption of energy by the Developing countries is expected to surpass that of the developed countries.
Today energy has become a "lifeline-bloodline" of modern civilization and geopolitical role of energy also grows. Either way, geopolitics of energy is becoming important geopolitical discipline.
Dear Darko.
Yes. I believe it has been started already! It is natural like other cases. Just as there are military geopolitics, diplomatic geopolitics and economic geopolitics, there is also energy geopolitics. We are witnessing the geopolitics of Natural Gas between Russia-Ukraine, the importance of Oil among Middle-East countries and the rest the growing geopolitical role of Electricity, even growth in geopolitics of Renewable Energy in coming years as it will grow and gains a higher percentage of the energy
I'm toust agree with Kamal Eddin, but once these resources exhausted, geo prefix has no meaning. For the ICT with its applications beyond expectations. the use of nano-technology, economy and energy storage, renewable energy. People will no longer need to move to buy or sell (ebay etc ...) can be the same, transportation will be affected by change,
Energy is now very much present in geopolitics, no doubt about it. As I do not believe in a vision from Mad Max, in the future, due to the developments in innovations in energy generation, storage & transmission as well as in innovative techniques of using energy on the demand side (e.g. EVs), new developments in the gas sector (methan hydrates, hydrogen etc.), the role of energy in geopolitics will consequently be diminished, starting from 2040 (invention of energy "killer app" may of course cause that it happens sooner). It's of course a peace scenario.
Energy has always been a key element to 'geopolitics' and development. A country needs some very basic elements to achieve economic development, among them: ENERGY, FOOD, RAW MATERIALS, EDUCATED POPULATION & RULING CLASS and the Constitution of an integrating STATE. If we analyze how USA, Canada, Australia, Brazil, and during the XXth Century Argentina achieved autonomous development, these are some of the elements present.
During the XVII th Century, UK and the Netherlands experienced similar processes due to the industrial revolution, technology, institutions and international trade. In order to realize the gains from Technology and Trade, a country needs to have a 'sound' institutional environment (rules of the game, enforcement of property rights, accountability, separation of powers, rule of law)
Germany, Japan & Korea are peculiar cases because they received external assistance due to political and geostrategic issues.
Today China is the fastest developing country, absorbing raw materials, energy, technology and food to supply its manufacturing matrix. In my opinion China is today what UK was during the first industrial revolution, although most of the technology used in China is bought abroad, mainly US and the EU.
Russia is extremely rich in natural resources, the biggest country in the world, Energy, fertile land for crops, a rich cultural tradition, but 'under performing' in economic terms. The reason would be its 'institutional environment'. Canada would be a similar territory to Russia in terms of natural resource endowment and easy to compare with.
Having made this necessary introduction, ENERGY will always play an important role in geostrategy, but new developments and innovations in this industry will diminish the importance of rich energy countries. Shale Oil and Gas in USA, China and Argentina promise to be an important source of fuels and inputs for manufacturing industries, e.g. petrochemicals, fertilizers, medicines, etc.
Fracking, which is a new technology to obtain oil and gas will allow to access a new source of fuels, increasing their supply and decreasing their prices. So, I would say that no new surprises will come from the ENERGY field.
Where we are going to see some surprises is in the field of "FOOD" and "WATER". Actually, water is considered a food in terms of nutrition, and the most necessary chemical compound for life on Earth.
Climate change will alter food production in different regions of the world, food security already is a key issue in some regions like Africa and Asia. China strategically bought and rented land in Africa, Asia and South America, securing its food supply for decades. But, China needs to upgrade its 'institutional environment' if it wants to achieve higher stages of economic performance. No country has made this step without reforming its political and governance system.
One last issue. In my opinion the War in Ukraine, which is not a civil war, but a 'proxy' war is fought for three reasons: 1) Ideological/cultural, 2) Fertile lands in Central and Western Ukraine (Most agronomist had to study one of the most fertile soils in the World, the CHERNOZEM, from UA), and 3) to keep it a "buffer zone", between the West and Eastern Europe-Asia (Baltic States and Poland played this role in the past)
Ukraine by itself, with cutting edge agricultural technology, biotechnology and modern management practices could feed the whole of Europe. Russia knows this, and wishes to keep Ukraine under its sphere of influence.
Bottom line, FOOD, WATER and ENERGY are key elements that will shape the near future. I only hope that LEADERS of the world have a profound understanding of these issues, in order to avoid "unnecessary" conflicts.
Rgds. to all
Dear Roland, I share your point ov view on our region. One can argue that we're from these same part of the world sharing similar interests, but I believe that our attachement to the peace and free market makes our point view universal. Actually, our region is really good example of agressive energy geopolitics, but not only energy plays here a role. Apart from other factors, Alejandro rightly distinguished politico-cultural ones. It's i believe mainly Eurasianism as a movement promoting an ideology of Russian-Asian greatness with a leading role of Russia. Eurasianism today influences geopolitics, interior policy, foreign policy, and culturalist philosophy as well. The War in Ukraine is a good example of practical realisation of this idea. With that war we went back to the XIXth century way of thinking about politics and geopolitics.
A couple of days ago Mahmoud gave me a link to one of the Iranian news services where I could read about idea to establish common Islamic market. Although I am not able to judge the prospects of this particular idea (I am not a specialist in the Middle East), it made me thinking about the developments in the Middle East and Caucasian Region. I got a couple of questions to our friends from that part of the world. What's your approach to the idea of Eurasianism? Considering different interests of Middle East countries; are there any pro-market ideas (excluding integration on the basis of oil&gas) that could make you cooperate closer together?
Hi friends, I found this article: 'The End of the American Era: U.S. Foreign Policy and the Geopolitics of the Twenty-first Century'.
Do you agree with this: 'To much of the world, the United States appears to be an all-powerful behemoth whose dominance will last forever. Our guest, however, says that this chauvinistic confidence about the longevity of the American era is not only misplaced but dangerous.
In The End of the American Era Mr. Kupchan discusses what he sees as the major challenge for American foreign policy in the twenty-first century, which he identifies as "the management of relations among contendant centers of power and the consequent rivalries which will ensue." He writes that "if America embraces the delusion that its primacy is here to stay and adopts the view that more traditional geopolitical challenges are gone for good, it will do so at its own peril."'
https://www.carnegiecouncil.org/studio/multimedia/20030227/index.html/:pf_printable
Dear Darko
As political power changes, I think it will surly develop.
East Asia in the 21st Century: Geopolitical
East Asia enters the 21st century recovering from the major financial crisis. Even so, much work remains to be done to create a real sense of regional unity and cooperation, which will allow the region containing one third of the world's population to fulfil the aspirations of those people.
President Kim Dae Jung's ''Sunshine Policy'' has for the first time in half a century opened a path towards the effective reduction of tensions and possible reunification of the two Koreas.
China is on the verge of joining the World Trade Organization and the InterAction Council urges a speedy end to the remaining negotiations so that China may take its full place as a member of WTO.
http://interactioncouncil.org/node/69
@Darko, the other part of your question is on energy geopolitics. Let me summarize: the present energy system is largely unsustainable. The global community faces the challenge of managing the transition to a new energy future in the next few decades. This transformation is likely to be irregular, costly, and at times painful, but inevitably it must be done.
http://csis.org/publication/geopolitics-energy
Regarding the issue of 'geopolitics', I have received today this paper which may help to understand the actual situation of agriculture and its strategic value. I just browsed it, haven't read it yet, but found some very interesting things in it.
I wanted to share it with you.
Today, after the economic crisis, the world is becoming politically polarized again. It is becoming increasingly clear that control and management of energy and energy resources is becoming more and more dominant method of gaining political power. With the increasing importance of energy to the economy, it is quite clear that the energy geopolitics is becoming increasingly important discipline.
Finally, an interesting statement: Former US Senator Richard Lugar declared that '' Energy is a potent weapon and a cut off gas or oil supplies in mid-winter could have as devastating an impact on a country's economy as a military attack. ''
The following issues are of major importance for the geopolitics of 21st century:
Global security threats and security needs
Transnational crime
Terrorism and globalization
Economic security
Energy security
Environmental and ecological security
Food insecurities, water conflicts
Global health security
Population growth, migration
Natural and man-made disasters
Costs and benefits of global security.
http://www.cirsd.org/
http://time.com/31911/geopolitics-and-the-new-world-order/
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/10/05/daniel_yergin_interview_global_energy_politics
Yes Alejandro, I agree with you that food,water, and energy are key elements that will shape the near future ..... future without conflicts.
Dear colleagues,
Thank you for joining the discussion.
Furthermore, (in my opinion), strategic oil reserves are becoming a major factor in the geopolitics of energy.
Having in mind the change in the geopolitical and strategic relations (weakening of the Russian domination in the supply of the European gas market and possible supply of the EU market with gas from LNG terminals in USA) it is unquestionable that the processes of energy sector (natural gas markets) globalization and liberalization has direct impact on energy geopolitics.
Energy resources has always been an important factor in geopolitics. Remember, Hitler's desire to capture the Caucasus or the last war in Iraq.
I think food security, energy security, and above all water security will be in center in any geopolitical development in 21st century.
Geopolitics Weekly - Online Magazine on Geopolitics and Foreign Affair
http://geopoliticsweekly.com/
Dr Frank Umbach: „The Geopolitical Impact of Falling Oil Prices“, (Geopolitical Information Service; GIS - www.geopolitical-info.com)
No matter what security of supply is a constraint on economic governance, it can still be a key policy objective of natural gas as a whole. However, unlike the competition, security of supply unites the political and economic dimension.
In late February, the European Commission intends to present a plan for the creation of Energy union, which wants to reduce the bloc's dependence on imported energy, improve energy efficiency and to create a single European energy market. The aim of this is to strengthen the Union's energy interconnections in electricity and gas, and diversification of supply of energy.
On the territory of the EU is less than 2% of the world's natural gas reserves, while the share of natural gas in total energy consumption in the EU is around 25%.
Today the EU imports about 53% of energy, thereby dependence on imports (volume and type of energy source) varies depending on the member states of the EU.
The oil market is one example of this trend, as it has moved away from contracts or government relationships between specific buyers and producers, to a global market system based on competitive bidding and price discovery through the commercial dealings of a wide number of players. The United States, as a world power and energy consumer, favors an open, transparent and competitive global market for oil in which no seller or group of sellers can dominate the market and thereby threaten the access by the United States or its allies to purchase the supplies of oil needed to conduct normal and everyday consumer, business and military operations
http://bakerinstitute.org/media/files/Research/abff6e06/IEEJMilitarization.pdf
Dear @Darko and friends, as 5 key goals of Energy Union are supposed such as , I do quote :
1) ensuring security of supply
2) building a single internal energy market
3) raising energy efficiency
4) decarbonizing national economies, and
5) promoting research and innovation,
"But you better watch out for the second and fourth goals on this list! Building a single internal energy market sounds like it will include enforcement, and decarbonizing everyone’s economies might not sit well if you have a definition of decarbonizing that differs from Germany’s (EU report).Will England insist on more wind in Ireland, against their will? Will Germany push for greater dependence on Russian natural gas? Will Germany try to shut down France’s nukes, even though they produce more carbon-free electricity than all other low-carbon sources in Europe combined?" Many problems will be raised by EEU!
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2015/02/09/the-role-of-the-new-european-energy-union/
http://www.europa.rs/en/mediji/news_from_brussels/5210/Commission+launches+work+on+Energy+Union.html
Will the geopolitics of energy or energy geopolitics become more important geopolitical discipline,time will tell. What is the present, the fact is that the geostrategic resources/ energy resources (oil, gas, water) now the creators of the foreign policies of many countries and major powers doctrine ...
Dear Darko,
I agree with you that the energy resources (oil, gas, water) now the creators of the foreign policies of many countries and major powers doctrine
The actors in the geopolitics are:
USA
Europe
Russia+China
Energy+Water
Using these actors one can write many scenarios!
The evolution of the global economy & the global energy trends after World War II, into the shapes that we see now, has occurred under American hegemony. It is true that there is growing fragmentation of the world economy due to the creation of regional economic blocs but the U.S. is still in full control “economically & energetically”. I do not see, so far, any serious real competitor with U.S. and hence the energy geopolitics will go on until 2 of the fossil fuels (Petroleum & N.G.) are depleted before the end of the 21st century. My analysis falls under realism in international politics but if an unexpected change occurs (such as when Germany was united & the Soviet Union collapsed), then I shall re-think of another analysis.
Energy is the key to 21st century Eurasian geopolitics - link follows! "...Despite the popularity of geopolitics as an interpretative discipline until the middle of the 20th century, it was largely overlooked during the Cold War. However, it is undergoing a revival and its relevance is particularly vivid in energy; unlike other resources such as finance, energy resources cannot be transported easily. Geopolitics can explain how economic imperatives can surmount political constraints to connect East and South Asia to the Middle East and Central Asia..."
http://www.asiapathways-adbi.org/2012/08/energy-is-the-key-to-21st-century-eurasian-geopolitics/
http://yalepress.yale.edu/reviews.asp?isbn=9780300171020
http://www.worldtribune.com/2015/02/18/indian-ocean-emerging-central-nexus-21st-century-geopolitics/
May be energy geopolitics has an important role in the global geopolitics, however other factors should be considered as economics trend, population growing trend, technology trend, education and climate trend etc..
Example if economics shows a slow functioning for some consequences of markets deregulation, saturation or low financial incomes , energy products as part of market needs couldn't be major actor for geopolitics. However economics is the major actor for the global geopolitics, economics in its roles of production, marketing and consummation needs money. The energy (or else) enterprise is built on the quality/ innovation/ technology... of the products, their concurrence in the market, and their consummation by final users. The final users should be able ( ie have sufficient money) to buy the needed products (from energy or else), if not the products will be unsold and the enterprise should stops its production for low incomes etc.. and the circle will run on other factors as education, health , population's growing, etc....
I think that the geopolitics of the 21 century will be built on human resources (many countries have understood it and yet have developed an aggressive immigration plan from worldwide educated youth). As without human resources from skills and youth, nothing could be built permanently. High technology from space, nuclear or military need high skills and brains. However no country (developed or under developed) has an interest to use the global destructive weapons who are largely shared by many nations from developed or under developed ones. So i don't think that any nation could raise to declare a global war. However the global military industry could creates foyers of tensions for its unsold products as markets and return on investment, and may be some forms of terrorism or nationalism (may be connected with local leaderships interests) could arise in some regions of the earth without any strategy from geopolitics only the economics factor from the factories producers of weapons who have not get final users. May be the global human challenge for the 21 century could be connected to the question of the economic regulation of military enterprises or their transformation. But their control by public and worldwide politics should be enhanced, unless the chaos could be generated
I'd like to cite a work by Dr.Sivkov K.V, "It's characteristic of global bipolarity. The main contradictions of global crisis: contradiction between growth of production and consumption and resources, necessary for development, contradictions between rich and poor civilizations, countries and social groups, countries industrially developed and countries suppliers of raw materials, between spheres of production and distribution, causing negative tendencies.There is only one aim is to remove Russia from geopolitical arena "anaconda's catch". It may cause loss of economic sovereignty by Russia (in economic relation) and loss of state sovereignty by Russia (in political relation). The desired type of civilizational system for Russia: unity of moral foundations, unlimited civilized development, co-ordination of civilized development, civilized mutual support, civilized equality, mutual safety. Russia is interested in multipolar geopolitical world, preservation of states as basic subjects of international law, non-admission to conversion of different transnational formations into subjects of civilization as international law, establishment of non-violent peace, strengthening the authority of UNO, geopolitical ally of Russia is Eurasian civilized union- moral, economic, territorial, military." http://anti-glob.ru/st/sivk.htm
In a keynote address at Anton de Kom University of Suriname in 2012, Sir Shridath Ramphal observed that gone are the days “when people were daring to bring the ‘Non-Aligned Movement’ to the Western Hemisphere, when we pioneered rejection of the ‘two China’ policy at the United Nations and recognized the People’s Republic; when, together, we broke the Western diplomatic embargo of Cuba; when we forced withdrawal of the Kissinger plan for a ‘Community of the Western Hemisphere’; when we were in the front rank (both intellectual and diplomatic) of the effort for a New International Economic Order; when from this region, bending iron wills, we gave leadership in the struggle against ‘apartheid’ in Southern Africa; when we inspired the creation of the ACP and kept the fallacy of ‘reciprocity’ in trade at bay for 25 years; when we forced grudging acceptance in the United Nations and in the Commonwealth that ‘small states’ required special and differential treatment.
These days, the foreign policy of Caricom nations, both individually and collectively, is comedic at the same time it is saddening. Unarguably, the most egregious recent foreign policy misstep occurred last November at the United Nations General Assembly during the vote on a resolution to upgrade Palestinian status to that of a non-member observer. With its own iconic history of struggles against the colonialists’ forces of dehumanization and for nationhood, Caricom nations might have been expected to act in concert and in solidarity with the Palestinian people in their quest for statehood alongside Israel. What happened instead was a conscious decision by CARICOM’s UN permanent representatives that each country be let to vote as it so chose. The disunity manifested itself in an inglorious split¸ among the Caricom bloc, in the vote, with 12 countries voting for the upgrade, and three abstaining. The complete lack of rationalization for this foreign policy incoherence was made all the more stark when John Goddard, the UN Ambassador for Barbados (which abstained along with Haiti and The Bahamas) declined to offer an explanation for Barbados’s diplomatic cop-out.
https://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=76&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CD4QFjAFOEY&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.stabroeknews.com%2F2013%2Ffeatures%2Fin-the-diaspora%2F02%2F18%2Fthe-geopolitical-justification-for-caricom-in-the-21st-century%2F&ei=oGAJVdPPEcaNuATW-IDgCg&usg=AFQjCNGdsaEePvT-tdt4z4Eu3DaeytHeNg
The big geopolitical move have started!
New BRICS bank to change world's financial system
12.03.2015
http://english.pravda.ru/business/finance/12-03-2015/130027-brics_bank-0/
BRICS New Development Bank Threatens Hegemony Of U.S. Dollar
http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2014/12/22/brics-new-development-bank-threatens-hegemony-of-u-s-dollar/
Yes dear Costas, I agree with you ..... the big geopolitic move have started
Five Big Geopolitical Risks for 2015
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-03-04/5-big-geopolitical-risks-for-2015
What is Geopolitics ?
"There is a tendency, especially among certain liberals and many who call themselves idealists, to believe that the subject of power in the international world should not be spoken of except in terms of moral disapproval. They consider that studies concerning the organization of peace and security should deal only with the ideals of our democratic civilization and visions of a better world order in which power will play no part.
As a matter of fact, political ideals and visions unsupported by force appear to have little survival value. Our Western democracies certainly owe their existence and preservation to the effective use of power, either on their own part or on the part of an ally."
Nicholas J. Spykman
The definition of geopolitics depends on time and location.
Moreau Defarges said :
“À chaque époque, à chaque civilisation, sa géographie, sa vision et sa représentation de l’espace”
The Geopolitics Of Energy
"Geopolitics is the battle for space and power played out in a geographical setting. Just as there are military geopolitics, diplomatic geopolitics and economic geopolitics, there is also energy geopolitics."
http://www.forbes.com/sites/stratfor/2014/04/04/the-geopolitics-of-energy/
The Geopolitics of Richard Nixon! "Finally, in Beyond Peace, Nixon called upon U.S. leaders to take a sophisticated approach to the Muslim world. The U.S. he wrote, “must learn to view the Muslim world not as a unified, radical geopolitical force bent on confronting the West but rather as a diverse cultural and ethnic grouping bounded by a faith in Islam and a legacy of political turbulence.” The Muslim world, he noted, sits astride key areas of the globe such as the Persian Gulf, the Strait of Hormuz, the Suez Canal, and the Strait of Malacca. He expressed concern that “throughout the Muslim world . . . there are rapidly growing fundamentalist movements . . . whose first loyalty is to the extreme Muslim fundamentalist religion with its roots in Iran.” The major long-term threat in the Muslim world, wrote Nixon, is Iran. The U.S. must not only contain Iran’s influence, he continued, but also “be prepared to assist ethnic and religious factions in Iran that oppose the Tehran regime.”
We are in a “clash of civilizations” with a portion of the Muslim world, Nixon explained. Fundamentalist Islam, he continued, “is a strong faith. Its appeal is religious, not secular. It appeals to the soul, not the body. Secular Western values,” he further warned, “cannot compete with this faith.” Nixon believed, however, that if the peoples of the Islamic world “are able to chart their own destiny,” instead of submitting to the rule of fundamentalist regimes like Iran’s that seek to “turn back the clock to the twelfth century,” then Islamic extremism will not triumph.
In these two great geopolitical works, Richard Nixon charted a path to victory in the Cold War and foresaw the world that would emerge from the end of that conflict."
It is worth to read even you do not share his opinion!
http://thediplomat.com/2015/04/the-geopolitics-of-richard-nixon/
Dear @Ivica, the following article is remarkable. How the US shale revolution changed the world!? Nothing will ever be the same! This story is old an hour!
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/2ded7416-e930-11e4-a71a-00144feab7de.html#slide0
"geopolitical equations"
In my opinion, "mathematically" in the Russian-European Energy geopolitical "equations" , Russia is the main source of resource (gas/oil) whereas Europe is still a great market for Russian energy sources....
In 21st century, geopolitics will centered around USA vs rest of the world!
----- The Return of Geopolitics -----
The year 2014 has been a tumultuous one, ---- as geopolitical rivalries have stormed back to center stage --- Whether it is Russian forces seizing Crimea, China making aggressive claims in its coastal waters, Japan responding with an increasingly assertive strategy of its own, or Iran trying to use its alliances with Syria and Hezbollah to dominate the Middle East, ---- old-fashioned power plays are back in international relations ---
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/china/2014-04-17/return-geopolitics
Riga summit to support construction of Southern Gas Corridor bypassing Russia
http://tass.ru/en/economy/796111
Peacekeeping and geopolitics in the 21st century!
http://www.brookings.edu/events/2015/05/15-21st-century-peacekeeping
http://www.brookings.edu/research/books/2014/fog-of-peace
the geopolitical development would continue in the direction it has taken in last 10 years.
Societies in individual nations ave become demanding. Nations and leaders are forced to look inward for welfare of the masses. No longer the rhetoric of socio-polical leaders able to satisfy the masses.
The US would continue to hold the edge. may be the gap would shrink. The markets of the world would be Asia. Making every organisations and nations focus there to earn.
Spirituality would become dominant. Individual and social peace would emerge as the topics of discussion and practice.
Land and natural resources would still be the cause for conflict.
Basic issues of food and water, shelter, hygiene would be central.
China would play a big role. World dominance of middle east by oil would go down. Throwing the region in to a turmoil. Focus would shift to sea. Indian ocean would be the area of action. India would emerge as a source of soft power. as it has a large pool of manpower and also spirituality.
Energy would be the cause of new friendships and animosity.
The United States has recognized china’s growing geopolitical importance and has made decisive actions to strengthen its position, via balancing and engaging with China. In his trip to the Asia-Pacific region, Barack Obama made clear that “the United States are a Pacific nation”. This means it will do whatever it takes to deepen its weight in the area, including signing new security agreements with Australia and The Australia, New Zealand, United States Security Treaty (ANZUS), attending the East Asia Summit in 2011 for the first time and starting conversations to strengthen its alliance with Japan and South Korea bilaterally and multilaterally
http://internationalpoliticalforum.com/geopolitics-in-asia-pacific-china-japan-and-the-us/
Colin S. Gray (British-American professor of international relations and strategic studies at the University of Reading and director of the Center for Strategic Studies), a prominent scientist in geopolitics, states that geopolitics is a relation between international political power and geographical surroundings.
Later on , Professor Colin Gray took the broadest view by claiming that all politics is in fact geopolitics because politics always occurs within a particular geographical context.
Will the geopolitics of energy (or energy geopolitics) become increasingly important geopolitical discipline, time will tell.
What is the presently clear, is the fact that the geo-strategic resources of water, oil and gas, are creators of the foreign policies of many countries
Eurasia, the “World Island”: Geopolitics, and Policymaking in the 21st Century
''Few modern ideologies are as whimsically all-encompassing, --- as romantically obscure, --- as intellectually sloppy, and --- as likely to start a third world war as the theory of `geopolitics.''
Charles Clover, 1999
http://www.globalresearch.ca/eurasia-the-world-island-geopolitics-and-policymaking-in-the-21st-century/2095
Since I have been invited to participate again in this discussion by dear Darko Pavlović, I like to look at how expectations are well-formulated in political analysis. In my humble opinion, one has to avoid imaginations, especially exaggerated ones, which come from editorials of some wide-spread newspapers. As you know very well, there are many examples of confusions & contradictions in the media with a final aim of maintaining ignorance of politics among the public thereby serving the interests of those who hold the keys of powers & would like to stay as such.
The reality is that the U.S.A is the single most influential superpower since the collapse of the Soviet Union. For the past 2 decades & in this decade, the Americans succeeded in mastering the geopolitical game all over the world. Some countries move behind the U.S.A in total obedience to implement its plans while other countries have "conditional" deals with the U.S.A which cannot be over-turned easily.
In this scenario, geopolitics is currently shaped by the Americans & will remain as such until a serious equivalent competitor emerges & becomes highly visible. Of course, the think tanks of U.S. policy are aware of that & there are ongoing plans to keep the geopolitics under full control.
America and the West face a very serious challenge from the East, but not in terms of the conventional definitions of the China threat --- China has no interest of military competition with the United States.
http://www.themontrealreview.com/letters/review/Geopolitics-US-China.php
I do not see a single power or an alliance of powers that would menace American supremacy soon. China does have a highly growing economy but its entry to various markets in many countries has been allowed by the U.S.A; the moment the permit is cancelled, a Chinese economic depression will ensue. Mind you, China has billions of U.S. paper dollars which effectively help in strengthening the U.S. economy.
If you look well at countries near China, you will see no political influence of China over them so how come it will become a global power?
China suffers from various internal problems. Most of its people live in poor conditions which made some analysts categorize it as an improved version of a 3rd world country.
I know that many intellectuals would like to see a "bipolar or multi-polar" world but the emerging power will not sneak its way out. The only serious candidate for challenging the U.S.A is a "truly" united Europe but Europe is still divided on many issues.
Geopolitics and the future over the next 20 to 50 years - The US, EU, China and Russia
The world is increasingly shaping up into 3 major economic power blocs.
The US -- Major allies - UK, Israel
The EU
China, Russia ----- Allies - India, Brazil, South Africa, South America (excluding Columbia), most of SE Asia, most of Africa.
The US and the EU are rapidly declining in relative power, while China, SE Asia and the BRICs are rapidly growing.
This process will continue over the next 20+ years.
http://ian56.blogspot.in/2014/03/geopolitics-and-future-over-next-20-to.html
With increasing competition between India and China, the Indian Ocean will play out in the twenty-first century developing into an area of ferociously guarded sovereignty. One of the most intriguing release is the map showing China’s ambitious visions for the “New Silk Road” and “New Maritime Silk Road.” It’s the clearest vision to date of the scope of China’s Silk Road plan.
http://www.irs.org.pk/spjf14.pdf
I do agree about the changing of emerging role of Indian Ocean, as stated by @Krishnan. I have attached some fine resources about this issue. Dear @Darko, I do think this resources will help.
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.202.1483&rep=rep1&type=pdf
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09733159.2010.559779?journalCode=rnmf20
https://www.adelaide.edu.au/indo-pacific-governance/policy/Timothy_Doyle.pdf
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/19480881.2010.489668?journalCode=rior20
"Chinese dredging vessels are purportedly seen in the waters around Mischief Reef in the disputed Spratly Islands in the South China Sea, in this file still image from video taken by a P-8A Poseidon surveillance aircraft and provided by the United States Navy on May 21, 2015 ...The timing of this war of words can largely be attributed to posturing ahead of last weekend's Shangri-La Dialogue, an annual security meeting in Singapore attended by military top brass from around the Asia-Pacific. Both the US and China were careful not to ratchet up tensions any further during the meeting itself. But at the heart of the spat is concern in Washington over how the US should respond to China's increasingly assertive foreign policy, the most obvious symbol of which was the recent establishment of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. It is the great geopolitical question of our time: should the US accommodate China's rise or seek to contain it? How Washington responds to China's provocations in the South China Sea is a test of how it intends to answer that question..."
http://www.straitstimes.com/news/opinion/columns/story/the-spat-the-spratlys-20150605
The dynamic of globalisation in financial and economic terms, but also in geopolitical terms, confronts Europeans with a stark choice: live together, share a common destiny and count in the world; or face the prospect of disunity and decline.
Jose Manuel Barroso
For future geopolitical stability and global prosperity, we need to build a culture of greater trust and understanding between China, America and the rest of the world.
Stephen A. Schwarzman
India's predominant position in a largely well-defined and self-contained Indo-centric geopolitical region also mean that threats to its security emerges from outside the region, from the major powers, rather from other powers within the South Asia region.
It has avoided direct confrontation with the major powers and provided a more or less limited challenge to the major powers in their attempts to organize the world according to their own designs.
http://www.preservearticles.com/2012032228679/short-notes-on-indias-geopolitical-position.html
India has a long history of geopolitical issues with China --- still going on!
World future is most concerned with these three issues;
How to replace the existing energy reserves, which are about to be depleted?
How to preserve resources and flows of clean water for future generations?
How to preserve the human environment and prevent cataclysmic climate changes?
These questions can help us distinguish between the two main contradictions of modern energy paradigm;
- The problem of energy depletion (reduction of future production of geostrategic resources)
- Constraints arising from the need to preserve the environment
"First, we have to find a common vocabulary for energy security. This notion has a radically different meaning for different people. For Americans it is a geopolitical question. For the Europeans right now it is very much focused on the dependence on imported natural gas."
Daniel Yergin
Territorial issues handled in a way that doesn’t create instability and heightened tensions
http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/interview/chinas-actions-cause-for-concern-australia/article7297362.ece
Geopolitical science therefore analyzes political, economic, social, environmental, energy, military and strategic issues and studies changes related to the geopolitical position which are dictated by growing importance of the resources that are becoming part of the new geopolitics - energy geopolitics essential for gaining political power.
As the Prussian military strategist Carl von Clausewitz once said: "War is the continuation of politics by other means". Today's geopolitics response to this statement could be: "Energy is the continuation of politics by other means".
"Globalization has changed us into a company that searches the world, not just to sell or to source, but to find intellectual capital - the world's best talents and greatest ideas."
Jack Welch
Elaborating on Mr. Jack Welch's statement: the company which searches the world needs a change of management at the top because such management has demonstrated immense greed & selfishness in trying to eat the meat & then throw the bones to others. The serious problem of brain drain has left several countries nearly paralyzed.
The growing importance of energy in the economy raises the following questions: what will be the development of geopolitics in the 21st century, and will the “geopolitics of energy” or “energy geopolitics” become increasingly important geopolitical discipline.
I think that energy geopolitics will become full-fledged discipline instead of being "scattered" among various disciplines. At a certain university in a 3rd world country, an old senior lecturer was obliged to talk about energy geopolitics in a chapter entitled "Energy & Energy Alternatives" in a course named as "Applied Chemistry". Some guys worked on cancelling that course & they succeeded. In a nutshell, no country will gain true independence while relying upon external energy sources that are controlled by certain powers. Development of sound & reasonable energy alternatives from local raw materials has become a must for a country to become truly free.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Physical Sciences
- Energy