Today’s Geopolitics

The invention of the term geopolitics coincided with a certain modernist belief that it was possible to view the world in its totality. In the earlier texts the physical environment was frequently conceptualized as a fixed stage on which political events occurred, rather than a dynamic and shifting problem which influence the very conceptualization of world politics. Later, critical geopolitical writers have argued that geopolitics is a discourse concerned with the relationship between power knowledge and social and political relations. Critical approaches to world politics suggest that unless one challenges contemporary structures and power relations, then academic approaches run the risk of merely legitimizing the power politics of states.

In these highly globalized times, representing the world along the lines of nation states and national interest becomes all the more difficult or complex when every practical feature of state sovereignty, such as the capacity to determine national laws and foreign policy, is open to challenge by other bodies of governance. The significance of these observations lies in the appreciation that each representation should not only be evaluated critically in the sense that there is no one accurate view of our many worlds but also in terms of probable inequalities of social and political power. There is no neutral or objective way of looking at the world, because our representations are always strategic and selective in the sense that some parts of the world are emphasized more than others.

The processes of globalization and regional integration have to be considered against the important backdrop of geopolitical fragmentation. Tension between integrative and disintegrative forces could be said to be a defining feature of a century described as an age of extremes. It has been argued that globalization and fragmentation have ebbed and flowed throughout the previous century, and for much of this period the world was not only threatened by nuclear annihilation but also characterized by extreme levels of violence and a willingness to spend US$ 860 billion per year on arm procurement (1993 figure).

The growth of multilateral organisations, international agencies and multinational corporations has challenged the capacity of the state to formulate and implement legislation. The management of national economies has had to be carried out in a context where the wishes of state elites coexist with the demands of international money markets, international obligations and globalized flows of capital. Issues such as inflation, environmental damage, drugs and UNEMPLOYMENT are transboundary in the sense that no one state or grouping of states can control these concerns. New forms of international cooperation have been required, such as the European Union’s Social Chapter, which sought to regulate social and economic affairs within European states. Non governmental organisations have challenged the functional capacities of states as globalization is thought to have increased the range of actions available to small groups and firms.

Some commentators suggest that future flash points in world conflict are likely to centre on numerous areas inhabited by stateless national minorities scattered along the Central Asia. The Kurds, the Macedonians, the Kashmiris and the Azerbaijanis of Iran are among the peoples whose nationalism may be aroused and create sever international tensions. Phrases such as “the return of tribalism” in the south to describe the state of the world after the Cold War are often emblematic of ethnocentric and racist geographical imaginations. The emergence of wars in Central Africa and the Balkans in the 90s was often considered by northern commentators to be symptomatic of a return to irrational tribalism. Bloody nationalism in Algeria, Bosnia, and Liberia was underpinned by dangerous and unpredictable forms of ethnic hatred and religious fundamentalism.

Increasing numbers of states and political leaders have recognized that the power of “long distance nationalists” can be considerable, as Greek and former Yugoslav communities in Australia, North America and Western Europe pressurize governments into taking lines of action. In contrast to previous conflicts, the “local conflicts” are increasingly globally mediated by the demands of identity politics and ethnic cleansing rather than the cold war struggle against communism or capitalism.

For Iran, coalition around powerful political actor is sought - one who is able to ensure the sovereignty of the country in the future. The prospect of the economic and social sustainability stands entirely on the objectivity of its newly elected president to devolve power to the experts. Measures should be taken by social actors to prevent sinister sense of direction that is weakening the society and the state. The key is to renounce fatal policies, by unquestioning allegiance to the True Father of Reform, Rafsanjani. He has been manipulatively and unfairly singled out, in similar manner as has been schemed for many political elites. In so doing, a “dignified” and unbiased role for the country is maintained for Iran on the world political scene.

NASRIN AZADEH, July 2005