![]() ![]() But despite the continuities with earlier ideas of a “geopolitical Europe,” in particular around the idea that Europe should be a “third force” in international politics (with China having replaced the Soviet Union as the second force), “pro-Europeans” who call for a more “geopolitical” EU have made no attempt to clarify how they understand “geopolitics” and how it differs from the earlier usage of the term. In fact, rather than settling Europeans in Africa, the EU is focused above all on stopping Africans coming to Europe-especially since the refugee crisis in 2015. Of course, the EU today does not seek Lebensraum. In short, the idea of a “geopolitical Europe” has a very problematic history. In particular, the “pro-Europeans” of that era saw Africa not only as a source of raw materials that would help make Europe competitive but also as a space into which Europe’s excess population could settle. The idea of Lebensraum was also central to these ideas of a geopolitical Europe. At that time, many saw European civilization as being threatened by the United States and the Soviet Union and urged it to unify to form a “third force” that could compete with them. ![]() In particular, they seem to be unaware of the history of the idea of Europe as a geopolitical bloc, which goes back to the 1920s. The concept, first used by Ratzel at the end of the 19th century, was later used to justify German expansion in Europe.Īdvocates of a more “geopolitical” EU, on the other hand, have none of Scholz’ skittishness and use the term rather naively and ahistorically. In particular, it was from the German tradition of geopolitical thinking that the idea of Lebensraum, or living space, emerged. The suspicion of geopolitics that Scholz was expressing has, of course, to do with an awareness of the particular German tradition of geopolitical thinking associated with political geographers Friedrich Ratzel and Karl Haushofer, which is in turn seen as being connected to Nazism. The concept of geopolitics emerged in the era of high imperialism at the end of the 19th century and originally focused on the role of physical geography in international politics-in particular in the competition between land powers and sea powers. The Problematic History of Geopolitical Europe It is easy to dismiss this as German Machtvergessensheit (“obliviousness to power”). He said that what scared him was how Russian President Vladimir Putin thought in such geopolitical terms ( “What frightened me is this incredible emphasis on geopolitics in the Russian president's thinking”) because to think in such terms was to reject the European “peace order.” In other words, while other figures like European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and High Representative for Foreign Affairs Josep Borrell were urging the EU to become more “geopolitical,” Scholz still saw “geopolitics” as something to be rejected rather than aspired to-even after the Russian invasion. In short, it’s an intellectual mess.Ī good illustration of this is German Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s interview with TV current affairs host Anne Will a month after the war in Ukraine began. It also means that when participants use the term to make arguments that may be controversial and are then criticised for them, they can backtrack and say that they meant something different. This leads to a rather confused and often somewhat circular debate in which participants conflate different meanings of geopolitics or different participants mean geopolitics in different senses. ![]() It often seems as if those who use the term have not even thought about its history or its different meanings and their implications. Those who call for a more “geopolitical” Europe rarely spell out which of these five meanings-or perhaps even some other meaning of geopolitics-they have in mind. It is used in at least five different ways: Firstly, as a straightforward synonym for international politics secondly, in the strict, original sense focusing on the role of geography in international politics thirdly, to refer to the strategic use of military tools (as opposed to “geo-economics”) fourthly, as a synonym for “power politics” (as opposed to rules in international politics) and fifthly, to capture a shift away from economic liberalism or the pursuit of economic objectives. There is a consensus-which has further strengthened since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February-that, as the European Union finds itself increasingly threatened, it must become more “geopolitical.” But there is little clarity about what “geopolitics” means. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |