Mackinder Versus Mahan - Essay Example

Understanding Contemporary Geopolitics: Mackinder versus Mahan By; Insert Semester due Introduction Geopolitics, at the beginning of the twentieth century was based on the two principles competing for dominance. The first is the principle of the land while the other is the principle of the ocean. Alfred Thayer Mahan inclination was on the principle of the ocean. This is evident in his writings, especially his fist exemplary piece of work that he did as a book called The Influence of Sea Power upon History (Sumida, 1999, p. 40). According to Mahan, geographical positioning, the extent of territory and the physical conformation of a particular country are important factors associated with a particular country’s gain of sea power. In addition, the characters of the government, its people as well as the population size are also important factors in the gain of sea power. On the other hand, a British political geographer by the name Sir Halford John Mackinder was inclined to the principle of land (Ashworth, 2011, p. 288). According to Mackinder, developments on the land such as constructions of railways that help achieve conformity of a particular region are important for the gain of power (Blouet, 2004, p. 322). Despite Mahan and Mackinder having the different point of views, their arguments were based on some common issues. These are the world struggle, victory and defeat and the role played by geographical features of the globe in determining the power of a nation. This paper will compare Mahan’s and Mackinder’s thinking influences on the United States politics. Mackinder’s Argument Sir Halford John Mackinder visions focused on the ascendant Eurasian, which is also referred to as heartland as well as the subordinate or the maritime lands which include the other continents (Johnston, 2010, p. 230). The thesis which he wrote regarding the heartland, which is the interior Asia and Eastern Europe, argued that this location was perfectly the strategic center of the world, which he referred to as the world island (Ashworth, 2011, p. 289). His argument was based on the point of view that the location was gaining substantially great power following the decline of sea power (Johnston, 2010, p. 231). Moreover, southern Siberia had been established and had been rapidly expanding its economic and industrial developments. He insisted on the important challenge that was the responsibility of both the United States and of Britain; ensuring that there was the preservation of balance between the powers that had profoundly strong intentions of gaining control of the heartland. This concept of the Heartland was indeed a prophetic concept. However, this was evident in a few cases following its implementation by those who actually embraced the argument by Mackinder as opposed to those who simply ignored it. The first one to test this hypothesis was the German geopolitician by the name Karl Haushofer, who had been strategizing too on how he could gain control of the world island (Ashworth, 2011, p. 290). He employed Mackinder ideas in his pursuit of ruling the world. Inspired by Karl Haushofer, Hitler also embraced this view of the world strategy that had been developed by Mackinder in his pursuit of power. Mackinder’s thinking influenced the United States of America to enter the World War declaring war against Germany. Mackinder is associated with arguments on future projections which, when assessed, get really near to the truths which come to pass. Importantly, this could be greatly influenced by his unmatched ability in critically evaluating lessons learned from the past events. Additionally, the influence could draw from the important meanings that he could convert into arguments based on the future of politics. For instance, World War II proved to provide essential influence in shaping of the geopolitical views (Ashworth, 2011, p. 300). It was after this war that Mackinder published a theory that was significantly valid concerning the Atlantic community (Blouet, 2004, p. 324). From his point of view, Mackinder foresaw union of the North America and the Western Europe. This union consequently led to the formation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which was equivalent to Mackinder’s theoretical prophesy fulfilled (Blouet, 2004, p. 324). North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is considered to be almost invincible. This is chiefly because of partially its guiding principles and the military influence of its member states. Consequently, member states are protected from potential terror attacks if attacked. This means the perpetrator faces the combined military force from all the member states. Many enemies would not attempt to attack. This invincibility of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) reflects great power that Mackinder insists profoundly upon. Mahan’s Argument From the point of view that the role of the sea is dominant in world’s power, Mahan has written twenty books and numerous articles. He associated the importance of the sea in many fields of developments, especially looking at it from the role the ocean played in the expansion of the British Empire (Hattendorf & Mahan, 1991, p. 1695). Mahan viewed the sea as a highway that enabled navigation from one geographical location of the world to virtually any other in the world. Consequently, the British were able to navigate the world and extend the rule of its empire. In addition, Mahan views the ocean as a wide and common and, therefore, its vastness was associated with substantial benefits. In a practical example in the history, the important role played by the sea in the balancing of power is clear. For instance, Mahan had similar views regarding the relationship between the importance of the sea and power both for Britain and America. First, Britain, according to Mahan is an island. America is also an island that lies on the offshore of the Eurasian landmass. Thus, America’s geographical position could be threatened by the powers that have the control of the Eurasia (Hattendorf & Mahan, 1991, p. 1699). It is therefore important, as observed by Mahan, to consider the gain of power in the sea by the Americans in order to establish a balance of power which could otherwise have been a threat if the sea was ruled by one center (Sumida, 1999, p. 44). This is what is referred to as the Anglo-American sea power. This power is important in the maintenance of peace by ensuring that other hostile powers have no chance of threatening the security of the two great powers, America and Britain. Success, in Mahan’s view, especially regarding the Anglo-American sea power is seen to have served to the failure of Napoleon’s pursuit of conquering the world (Hattendorf & Mahan, 1991, p. 1734). Mahan observes that, that the Anglo-American forces were in control of the sea, Napoleon could not get to America where he intended to extend his rule. This was thus the obstacle that kept this determined conqueror from gaining dominion over the world. In addition, Mahan warned of allowed indefinite gain of military might and political influence of Germany due to its central geographical positioning in Europe. Mahan observed Germany as a potentially severe threat to both Britain and America (Hattendorf & Mahan, 1991, p. 1753). This was from the point of view that if Germany conquered Britain, it would ultimately conquer America due to the gain of the sea power that it would gain if Britain did not inhibit it from gaining it. Thus, making sure that German’s political influence as well as military might was limited was the way to stop her from gaining dominion over the world (Hattendorf & Mahan, 1991, p. 1753). Evidently, obscuring Germany from gaining Europe’s ultimate political influence kept it from gaining political influence if the whole world, just as Mahan predicted. Another strategy envisioned by Mahan and which came to be implemented was that of containing the Russian Empire (Sumida, 1999, p. 56). The Russian empire’s stretch was so vast and uninterrupted that it had begun being a threat to other countries in the world. It had consistently gained power and if uninterrupted it would continue doing it indefinitely. This posed impending threats to those countries that considered the Russian empire as a hostile power. In the pursuit to counter such a massive empire, it would not be possible to achieve any success by the attempt of doing so by a single nation. It would take combined powers, great powers, to interrupt the Russian empire and keep it from domineering over the whole world with its hostile power. Strategizing for the counter, Mahan considered an alliance composed of the Great Britain, the United States of America, Japan, France and Germany (Sumida, 1999, p. 57). Since 1945, this has been observed to come true. As a result, the Russian Empire was no longer a threat to the countries of the world. Of Mahan’s most amazing foresights is the rise of China. He saw the impending growth and development of China that would be profoundly great given the geographical location and political conditions in China. Mahan perceived china’s control of the North Pacific as the onset of its great rise. He described precisely how that was bound to happen if it did. China definitely embraced the Mahanian strategy that led to its rise. Gaining sea power was the key to unlocking china’s global prosperity and influence. Composed of a very large population, it had the ground for the establishment of political support. Mahan also elaborated the trend of the science which was towards the end of the nineteenth century characteristic to the western countries (Sumida, 1999, p. 48). He foresaw that science and technology would have moved and extended all over the world in a few decades thus becoming a global thing. This would disadvantage the western countries of the monopoly in sciences while it could profoundly benefit those countries that previously did not have them. China’s influence, with its strategic geographical positioning in the east could be perfectly complemented by its massive population and the access to science and technology (Hattendorf & Mahan, 1991, p. 1766). Located in East Central Asia with a huge population, established growing economy, military and naval power and having a significantly lengthy coastline, China’s rise was inevitable. Despite his clear and persuasive envision about this country located at the heart of Asia, Mahan’s vision was not paid as much attention as it should have by the Americans. Consequently, China has risen so greatly that it is one of the leading threats to the United States of America. Conclusion In conclusion, Mackinder’s argument that steam power, railways, electricity among other land associated infrastructures being the ultimate physical barriers breakers especially to unify continental nations has been proven to have achieved precision or nearness to the truth from prophesies that he made through his writings. Mahan’s influence, on the other hand, with his arguments about the influence of sea power in gaining the world dominion has also been seen to be true in many instances in history. However, the two points of views of determining the worlds system will continue to conflict indefinitely. My inclination to who is more useful in understanding contemporary geopolitics from the cases elaborated above along with other knowledge that is not in this paper is towards Mahan. Mahan’s influence in the making of the United States policies has shown significant importance. The United States of America has a sufficient defense in the sea. This has consequences on it economic control as it is able to protect its commercial interests. This is by having in place supreme military in the sea that ensures that vital trade routes are restricted and safeguarded. United States’ sea power also ensures that it is prepared to defend itself from any external attacks. The influence of Mahan’s thinking in understanding the current status of the United States of America from its history is definitely of more importance. Bibliography Blouet, B. W. (2004). The imperial vision of Halford Mackinder. Geographical Journal. 170, 322-329. Sumida, J., 1999, Alfred Thayer Mahan, Geopolitician. Journal of Strategic Studies, 22, 39-62. Ashworth, L., 2011, Realism and the spirit of 1919: Halford Mackinder, geopolitics and the reality of the League of Nations. European Journal of International Relations. 17, 279-301. Johnston, R., 2010, Geopolitics and Empire: the Legacy of Halford Mackinder. Journal of Historical Geography. 36, 230-232. Hattendorf, J. B., & Mahan, A. T. (1991). The Influence of history on Mahan: the proceedings of a conference marking the centenary of Alfred Thayer Mahans The influence of sea power upon history, 1660-1783. Newport, R.I., Naval War College Press. Read More