In the National Security Strategy of the United States of December 2017 China, Russia and the Islamic Republic of Iran are mentioned as challengers to American power, influence and interests and attempting to erode American security and prosperity. Iran is mentioned as a dictatorship that is determined to destabilize regions, threaten Americans and allies, and brutalizing its own people.
In an article of January 9, 2018, in Real Clear Defense American geopolitician Francis P. Sempa argued for an American national strategy rooted in classical geopolitics. Sempa is the author of ”Geopolitics: From the Cold War to the 21stCentury”, ”America’s Global Role: Essays and Reviews on National Security”, and ”Geopolitics and War”. Excerpts below:
—
The specifics of a National Security Strategy [are] important as the underlying worldviews of the president and his key advisors. What is crucial is that the nation’s foreign and defense policies be rooted in an appreciation and understanding of classical geopolitics. This means that U.S. policymakers should have a knowledge of history in its geographical settings and a familiarity with the works of the greatest geopolitical scholars: Alfred Thayer Mahan, Halford Mackinder, and Nicholas Spykman.
Alfred Thayer Mahan graduated from the US Naval Academy in 1859, served in the Union Navy during the American Civil War, and ended up teaching at the Naval War College in Newport, Rhode Island, between the 1880s and his death in 1914. He authored 20 books and hundreds of articles on history and naval strategy. He achieved world renown for his book The Influence of Sea Power upon History(1890).
His most important geopolitical work was The Problem of Asia (1901), but his geopolitical insights can also be found in The Influence of Sea Power Upon the French Revolution and Empire (1892), The Interest of America in International Conditions (1910), and Naval Strategy (1911).
Mahan understood that the United States was effectively an island or insular continental power with no potential peer competitor in the Western Hemisphere but with several such potential competitors in the Eastern Hemisphere. Because the U.S. was separated from the Old World by two great oceans, sea power was essential to its national security.
Halford Mackinder was a British geographer, lecturer, and statesman who wrote three of the most important and influential geopolitical analyses between 1904 and 1943. The first, “The Geographical Pivot of History” (1904), was an address to the Royal Geographical Society in London, which later appeared in the Geographical Journal. The second, ”Democratic Ideals and Reality” (1919), was written immediately after the end of the First World War and urged the statesmen of the world to construct a peace based on geopolitical realities rather than utopian ideals. The third, “The Round World and the Winning of the Peace,” appeared in Foreign Affairs in 1943 in the midst of the Second World War.
His geopolitical map of the world consisted of the Eurasian-African continent that he called the “World-Island,” because it potentially combined insularity with unmatched population and resources; the surrounding islands, including North America, South America, Great Britain, Japan, Australia and lesser islands; and the world ocean.
The Eurasian landmass or “great continent,” contained most of the world’s people and resources. The “pivot state” or “Heartland” of Eurasia was the inner core region stretching east-to-west from the Lena River in Siberia to the edge of Eastern Europe between the Black and Caspian Seas and north-to-south from just below the arctic circle to Inner Mongolia and the northern Central Asian republics. The Eurasian Heartland was geographically impenetrable to sea power but suitable for mobile land power.
—
In 1904, he warned Western statesman that if a great power or coalition of powers achieved effective political control of the key power centers of Eurasia, it could use the resources of the great continent to build a powerful navy and thereby overwhelm the world’s other insular powers—“the empire of the world would then be in sight.”
In 1919, he colorfully suggested that some “airy cherub” should whisper into the ear of Western statesmen: “Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland: Who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island: Who rules the World-Island commands the world.”
In 1943, Mackinder suggested that a Heartland-based power could be contained by a coalition of powers based in the “Midland Ocean,” which included the United States and Canada, Great Britain, and the nations of Western Europe, a remarkable and prescient description of the NATO coalition that formed six years later in response to a Heartland-based Soviet empire’s expansionist policies.
—
Nicholas Spykman taught international relations at Yale University in the 1930s and 1940s. He wrote two geopolitical masterpieces, ”America’s Strategy in World Politics”(1942) and ”The Geography of the Peace” (1944), that latter of which was published posthumously. Spykman accepted the geopolitical division of the world as described by Mackinder, but differed with Mackinder about the power potential of the world’s regions.
—
For Spykman, the world’s most powerful region was not the landlocked Heartland, but the crescent-shaped area bordering the Heartland that he renamed the “Rimland.” In The ”Geography of the Peace”, he issued a counter-dictum: “Who controls the Rimland rules Eurasia, who rules Eurasia controls the destinies of the world.”
Spykman nevertheless agreed with Mackinder that the postwar struggle would potentially pit a Heartland-based Russia against the maritime power of the United States for control of the Rimland, and so it turned out to be. Spykman even foresaw that China would one day be a “continental power of huge dimensions,” and her size, geographic position, natural resources and population would force the United States into an alliance with Japan to preserve the Asian balance of power.
Indeed, Mahan, Mackinder and Spykman all understood that China’s geographical position, resources, immense population, and access to the sea made her potentially a formidable power on the Eurasian landmass.
—
The most astute observers of global politics today, such as Robert Kaplan, Henry Kissinger, and Colin S. Gray, stand on the intellectual shoulders of giants like Mahan, Mackinder, and Spykman. Kaplan and Gray, in particular, have updated the classical triumvirate’s geopolitical insights to the 21st-century world of nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, space-power and cyber-power. Kaplan’s ”The Revenge of Geography, Monsoon”, and “The Return of Marco Polo’s World,” Kissinger’s ”Diplomacy”, and Gray’s ”The Geopolitics of the Nuclear Era, Maritime Strategy”, ”Geopolitics, and the Defense of the West”, ”The Geopolitics of Superpower”, and ”The Leverage of Sea Power”, should be on the reading lists of our national security policymakers.
President Trump’s first formal National Security Strategy speaks of the need to preserve a favorable balance of power in the Indo-Pacific region, Europe, and the Middle East, which roughly approximates Spykman’s Rimland. It recognizes that the two most likely global competitors of the United States are China and Russia, both continental-sized powers situated in or near Mackinder’s Heartland. It expresses the need for greater investment in naval power in order to maintain and increase our access to allies and bases on the Eurasian landmass, consistent with the teachings of Mahan. In these ways, it reflects an understanding of classical geopolitics.
Comment: Sempa’s article is of great importance. The American geopolitician is arguing that the new American National Security Strategy shows influence by the classical geopolitical theorists Mahan, Mackinder and Spykman. This blog has for years argued that this understanding is important and that China, Russia and Iran, in that order, are challenging the power relations in Eurasia.
Peter Navarro, Director of the White House National Trade Council, has explained that America has given China every opportunity to change its “aggressive behavior.” He has said that a 2017 Mar-a-Lago summit and several rounds of trade talks between high-level officials in the past year have not yielded any progress.
“It is important to note here that the actions President Trump has taken are purely defensive in nature,” he said. “They are designed to defend the crown jewels of American technology from China’s aggressive behavior.”
Navarro said China is seeking to acquire American technology six ways, including physical theft and cyber theft, forced technology transfer, evasion of export controls, export restraints on raw materials, information harvesting campaigns designed to exploit the openness of the U.S. economy, and acquisition of the “crown jewels” of American technology by China’s state-backed funds.
It seems that US policy in the economic competition with China is part of a grand strategy to seek a change in Chinese aggressive economic policies. In the case of Russia the challenge is more of a military nature. A strengthening of American ballistic missile defense as part of the present American military buildup would be an important step. The present increase of American sanctions against Iran shows a determination to counter destabilization by the regime in Tehran.