The Grand Chessboard - Assignment Example

? The Grand Chessboard In the Introduction of “The Grand Chessboard” by Zbignew Brzezinski, he shows how Eurasia, a combination of Europe and Asia, basically held the world power through politics, based on geographical and economic values. This was true even as the Americas began colonization and ultimately, the industrial revolution that brought the United States in line with other world powers. In the twentieth century, and through several world wars, the development of technology, economy and trade, has rapidly pushed the United States forward as a world political arbitrator in the complex relationships between the countries that make up the Eurasian conglomerate. In World War II, when essentially the United States was invaded on its own shores for the first time by a foreign power, the United States stepped away from its previously held stance of isolationism and idealism, and joined the global conflict to protect its own interests. In doing so, the United States became a global power to be contended with on a serious level. It can be safely said that without the introduction of the United States to the Allied powers group in the war, the outcome would have been very different. Europe and Britain would be under the dominance of Hitler’s Germany, and Asia, under the influence of Japan, albeit a rather limited one (Brzezinski,5). From the end of World War II, war was fought on an ideological level between Communist Russia, China and the Western powers of Europe and the United States as part of the “Cold War.” Brzezinski notes the reasons for Communist Russia’s eventual fall was the lack of creativity, appeal of ideals, and a stagnation of economic growth and military technology, although these aspects remained hidden from the West until close to the end of the “war.” Brzezinski also compares the United States to the Roman Empire and why it was so successful for many years, reaching its highest level in A.D. 211. The Roman Empire was self-sufficient, had a centralized political center, a strategically designed system of roads and naval transport routes, allowing for rapid deployment of ready troops and supplies when there was a need. The Romans were also known for their lethal effective military tactics and supply of armaments that greatly surpassed any other country’s army. For 300 years, the Roman Empire ruled the region on its highest level, maintaining internal vitality and unity as part of its successful dominance. What finally broke the Roman Empire was the division of governing different areas in the Empire rather than keeping control centralized in one spot, the disintegration of morals and ideology, and a sustained inflation which required sacrifices the people no longer wanted to make. At the time of writing this book, Brzezinski viewed America as ‘standing supreme in the four decisive domains of global power,’ those being economic, militarily, technologically, and finally, culturally. Today, there is less supremacy, mainly because of the economic situation, even though the effects are worldwide, not just in the United States. The economic situation today almost forces America to show military might in areas of the world where changes in a foreign country could severely affect the American economics. Many wars in our present time are more about economics rather than a political ideology, although they are somewhat tied hand in hand. What is unique about America is its influence in creating dialogue with other nations in an effort to promote a universe of international communication and peaceful interaction to avoid unnecessary potential conflicts (Brzezinski, 28). That’s not to say that other countries are not doing this too, but it seems the United States is in the middle of everything major concerning world events and their potential resulting effects. As Brzezinski notes, to support this claim, America’s supremacy has helped institute NATO, a collective international security group with an integrated command that represents the world at large; North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the World Bank and World Trade Organization (WTO); ability to share decision making with others; a democratic influence within key alliances; and finally, a World Court to prosecute war crimes. How does America differ from other empires, for instance, like the Roman Empire? In the first instance to consider, the United States is on its own continent and does not want to overtake another country. That is the geographical aspect of the situation. The U. S. is content to be a strong influence in political and economic decision-making summits and conferences with other nations. In 2012, we can look back at Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan and ask why we were even there as a military presence if we are not going to stay and rule the countries involved. The U. S. perhaps views itself as a savior of a country against dominating forces that do not work for the people, who lead a country down a path of destruction that makes it a rotten tomato in a bushel of ripe tomatoes. When one goes bad, the others are sure to follow over a given period of time. In the case of Korea and Vietnam, it was more a matter of preventing the communist domination of total countries which, if successful, would also affect our influence in world politics. For Afghanistan and Iraq, the factors were two-fold in basis: the economic issues of oil controlled by an enemy and the domination of corrupt dictators and religious fanatics out to harm their own people, or ours. Once the missions are accomplished – one way or another – then we leave the country and come home. When reading "The Geographical Pivot of History" by Halford Mackinder, published in 1904, he said the Eurasian “pivot area,” consisting of Siberia and most of Central Asia, was the springboard for acquiring continental domination. This was known as the Heartland Theory and was also the basis for the German Nazi platform to take over Europe during World War II (Haushofer,). While analyzing the writing, we could say that the theory was correct for the times when it was published and also for the German theory on how they would take over Europe, Africa and East Asia, including Russia. His most famous statement says it all in three lines: Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland; Who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island; Who rules the World-Island commands the World. -Halford Mackinder Today, this theory is unacceptable due to the changes in the social, political and economic balance of the European nations. Not only does the advent of America on the international stage of world powers affect this overall view, but the nature of how countries influence each other on a political and economic basis. Russia and China are still big players in the Asian market, even though Russia currently still struggles with economic havoc. China, on the other hand, while still a communist country, it has made subtle changes in its ideology and huge advances in business practices and economic structuring through active trade policies and international commerce agendas. As other countries make changes in their social, political and economic views and structures, some countries will come more into prominence, based on what they have to offer the rest of the world. As scholars A. Bogaturov and V. Kremenyuk stated in the Nezauisimaya Gazeta, the United States is choosing to follow a path of indirect influence wherein “… the new organization of the European space that is being engineered by the West is, in essence, built on the idea of supporting, in this part of the world, new, relatively small and weak national states through their more or less close rapprochement with NATO, the EC, and so forth.” In the chapter called “The Black Hole,” the author reviews the Russian history in the last century and the chaos it has gone through starting in World War I and the upheaval of the imperial throne, internal revolution, a change into Marxism and Communism, the era of Stalin’s dictatorship which was a time of great fear for the people, and subsequent cold war era. During those times, there was little economic security of any type and few ways for the Russian population to bring itself up from the poverty of the common folks. When the U.S.S.R. finally fell and became officially Russia again, while there was hope of a better life for the people, there was still no structure for making a living which caused many problems and also allowed for a proliferation of black market and Russian mafia groups. In the midst of all this, the Russian government was working to try and gain control of former areas of progress such as the space program, consolidating issues between Kazakstan, Belarus and Kyrgyzstan and to maintain a hold on Georgia and other states. All of these issues impacted how the United States saw Russia as an international force while still being decimated from within. It brings up the question of when a system of government is changed or removed in a country, then there must be something else ready to fill that empty spot. In reality, it takes time to implement new changes, especially when there are so many areas that must be repaired, removed or rebuilt. How to deal with these issues not only affects the internal workings of a country but also affects the capability to effectively interact on an international basis, especially when viewed on all counts as essentially weak throughout. Another area to review is how the cultural makeup of countries have changed, even since “The Grand Chessboard” was written. The United States, for instance, has changed due to the influx of immigrants, some illegal, other nationals who come to the U.S. to get a good education or to settle down and live in America. Many bring their cultures, politics and religious beliefs with them and that has changed the face of America, certainly most dramatically in the last twenty years. Spanish is a second language of choice and there is an African-American president in the White House. Policies and rules change over time to reflect the new internal influences and these also affect how the American people view and interact with the rest of the world. As Brzezinski states "Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multi-cultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat." (p. 203) In his conclusion, Brzezinski brings up the issue of Iran and states how it is not advisable to do the American thing and vilify a country, based on its religious beliefs and practices, without giving credence to the larger picture. Since that writing, could we say that we cannot hold to that path when we are facing the nuclear threat that no one seems to be able to curtail on any level without an all-out war? Do we try to continue talks, knowing that we are most likely wasting our time? When do we know we have no more time left and have to take action on a most horrific level because we have a duty to our own people to protect ourselves first? Brzezinski also points out that due to the very nature of our advancements in technological communication and industrial, as well as scientific advancements, all shared across the world, we will soon no longer be the sole dominant super power. It’s not so much that we lose power, but that even the smallest countries can now have a say in what goes on in the world, particularly where they are concerned. Information and communication are much ‘less constrained by national boundaries’ and the economics of one place affect the economics all the way across the chessboard. As he points out, we need to come closer to a conglomeration of nations (much like what NATO should be) who can come together and hammer out the details of getting along with each other, regardless of religious and political beliefs. This can well be accomplished although those who cling to outdated methods of threats and saber-rattling are left on the sidelines or dealt with in a quick and efficient and cohesive unilateral method. While America would be a strong presence, it will share that with other countries and, as Brzezinski puts it, America will have a ‘fitting legacy …as the first, only, and last truly global superpower.’ Also mentioned in the conclusion is how the American public is so media and entertainment-orientated that the idea of going to war is considered a last resort unless it comes down to a response from a full scale attack on the United States. 9/11, which happened after this writing, created a surge of nationalism, as did the events of Pearl Harbor, when young men (and old) signed up the next day to take on the enemy and exact revenge. Unlike other countries of the world, the United States has had little experience of being attacked and invaded on its home turf, yet attacks have happened twice now and they have provoked responses of an unheralded nature that is not really seen anywhere else in the world. But does the over-abundance of reliance on entertainment/drugs that allows us to enter other worlds really dampen our view of how the rest of the world is? Will it affect a population that might otherwise choose to go to higher education, learn about how the world works, the political history behind much of what happens today in our country, and others? It remains to be seen in the future how this all plays out in our society. Another point to consider is using a commodity, such as oil, as a bargaining chip between countries and this is where everything can fall apart in terms of peaceful negotiating with other countries as we have already seen in our conflicts with the Middle East (Yergin, 2008). In Yergin’s updated book, The Price: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money, and Power, he gives a history of how oil was developed here and then how the infrastructure of doing business in oil went overseas to the Middle East. Oil, in essence, has become the economic factor in many of the wars we are experiencing in Iraq and other Middle East countries. So long as commodities are used as a weapon to gain advantages over others, then there will be wars. No one wants to be threatened or blackmailed into giving way and losing when there could have been better ways to negotiate terms. Moreover, changes in weather and climates can affect the energy policy of a country within one year and that has an effect on how negotiations are conducted with other countries regarding purchasing supplies which help a country survive, especially in times of disaster. Europe, for example, has had one of the coldest winters on record so the demand for more heating fuel would be higher than normal. As we can witness in our own country, prices for gasoline have gone up – again – and these means requests for more supplies. In truth, we really have plenty but what it appears to be is that oil companies want to stock up in case the really hard times happen and supplies diminish. Events such as these, affect how we do business with other countries because we are now ‘in need.’ Bibliography Brzezinski, Z. The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives. (1998). Basic Books, N.Y.C., New York Mackinder, H. J. The Geographical Pivot of History. The Geographical Journal. Vol.23, No.4. (1904). Pp.421-437. Blackwell Publishing, England. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1775498 Bogaturov, A. and Kremenyuk, V. "Current Relations and Prospects for Interaction Between Russia and the United States," Nezauisimaya Gazeta, June 28,1996. Yergin, D. The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money & Power. (updated) (2008) Free Press. Mankato, MN. Karl Haushofer. The Theory of Geopolitik. Read More