Latest news with #Mackinder
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Central Asia's Resources Spark a New Global Scramble
Having arrived in Central Asia to make deals, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni did a lot of name-checking during a policy address at the Astana International Forum. First, she went for the low-hanging fruit, giving a shout-out to Marco Polo, pointing to the legendary 13th century Venetian merchant-explorer to support her assertion that it is in 'the DNA of the Italian people' to seek new trade possibilities. She then dusted off a name that had fallen out of favor for decades — Halford Mackinder, the early 20th century British geographer who is considered a founding father of geopolitics — to explain why she was participating in a May 30 summit with the leaders of all five Central Asian states. She referred to Mackinder's heartland theory, a concept developed in 1904 that asserts the nation which controls the heartland's abundant natural resources will dominate global politics. She described Central Asia as the hinge of Mackinder's heartland, 'one of the pivots around which the fate of the world revolves.' Meloni sounded profound and sincere but invoking Mackinder's century-old ideas seemed somewhat out of sync with the substance of her message that the post-World War II system is broken, and nations now need to 'look beyond the horizon' to create a new order. 'Everything around us is changing and the few certainties we thought we had are no longer there,' she stated. In one respect, the Mackinder reference says a lot about how the European Union (along with the United States) is grappling with changing realities. The calls by Meloni and others for new thinking aren't being matched by actions to put an actual strategy in all the 'strategic partnerships' being forged with Central Asia. That Meloni retreated so far back into the past, instead of citing a more contemporary thinker to offer an intellectual framework for engagement with Central Asia, merely underscores a lack of vision, not just by Italy, but also the European Union and the United States. Mackinder may have been prescient in anticipating the importance of Central Asia's natural resources, but one should keep in mind that he formulated his ideas when an airplane could barely fly a few hundred feet, international finance rested on the gold standard, battleships were kings of the seas and AI was something right out of H.G. Wells. The complexity of global supply chains was unfathomable to him. His frame of reference was colonial. The Mackinder reference can also be seen as a mea culpa of sorts, tacit recognition that Western nations are playing catch-up in Central Asia, finally recognizing more than 30 years after the Soviet collapse that the region has a lot more to offer than oil and natural gas. For all of Meloni's talk about a need 'to look beyond geographic boundaries,' her visit to Central Asia stuck to largely familiar terrain. The announcements published during her visit sounded a lot like those produced following April's EU-Central Asia summit in Samarkand, or those coming out of Washington regarding a desire to strike deals for critical minerals, build out the Middle Corridor and forge strategic partnerships. Long on aspiration, short on details. Overall, the Italian delegation concluded 7 billion euros worth of investment deals with Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan, but the statements contained few specifics about the projects. The joint statement issued following the summit featured the usual language about creating an 'open and constructive dialogue,' while expressing an intent to 'expand cooperation in interrelated areas such as natural resources, climate and energy – including renewable energy, (e.g. solar, wind, hydropower etc.), critical raw materials, agriculture, connectivity and critical infrastructure – including through the EU's Global Gateway strategy.' But again, details were scant on how to achieve the lofty goals. One area where Italy seemed to set itself apart from the EU in general and the United States was an interest in helping Central Asian states address water resource management challenges and improve agricultural productivity. Still, while EU and US officials seem to know where they want to go in Central Asia, they don't seem to have a good road map to get there. Central Asian states aren't shy about wanting to give the EU and US directions. Both Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan are keen to have Western powers involved in the carbon and critical minerals sectors, as well as the development of green energy solutions. But they don't want to merely be sources of raw materials; they want to be refiners and exporters of finished products. Thus, for cooperation to be successful, a solid infrastructure needs to be established. There needs to be follow-up. At the summit, Uzbek leader Shavkat Mirziyoyev outlined steps that Central Asian states want to see taken, calling for a 'comprehensive multilateral Program of Industrial and Technological Cooperation' enabling 'technology transfer, the introduction of advanced knowledge and best practices, [and the] creation of high-tech industrial facilities.' The watchword he used was 'localization.' Kazakh President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev sounded similar notes, calling for the creation of a mechanism in which raw materials are exchanged for investment, technology and know-how in other areas. He also expressed a desire for Western geological expertise to help map deposits of critical minerals. Both Mirziyoyev and Tokayev called for systematic and regular diplomatic consultations, as well as significantly expanded educational exchanges. They want to feel confident that Central Asia will remain on the West's radar. To build effective strategic partnerships, then, EU members along with the United States need to listen more and have the patience to lay the groundwork to expand trade while helping Central Asian states in ways that China and Russia cannot, providing knowledge and resources that assist the region in confronting climate change, building local capacity and making the most efficient use of dwindling water resources. The heartland has grown a lot more complex since Mackinder's day. As Tokayev noted in his opening speech at the Astana International Forum: 'We must recognize that the threats to global security are not only geopolitical.' By Justin Burke via More Top Reads From this article on
Express Tribune
03-05-2025
- Politics
- Express Tribune
Rethinking geopolitics: how the world looks from the East
Listen to article The prevailing literature on geopolitics is, in large part, an echo of how the world appears through the lens of the West. This dominant perspective has not only shaped the narratives of global power but has also denied many nations — particularly those of the East — the opportunity to express the world through their own conceptual and philosophical frameworks. Deprived of this kaleidoscope, many nations have been constricted into worldviews not born of their own soil but superimposed through intellectual and institutional dominance of the West. My new book, Geopolitics - Frameworks and Dynamics in a Multipolar World, is perhaps a natural reaction to this asphyxiation of expression, which has and will lead many observant minds to rethink national and geopolitical narrative. Perhaps it is right time to rethink and re-narrate, when the unipolar world is changing into a multipolar world, and when the geo-economic situation of the world also seems to be at the edge of a polar-shift, rather it has become a compulsion. The tyranny of political correctness and epistemological dependency has paralysed indigenous ideological growth, depriving nations of the very dream of becoming protagonists in their own historical unfolding. Breathing, thinking, working nations cannot be caged within the strictures of externally dictated norms any longer. Nevertheless, to think geopolitics from the East is not to reject the West, but to decolonise the imagination. It is to assert that every culture has the right - and perhaps the obligation - to interpret the world through its own metaphysical lens. Western geopolitics, rooted in figures like Mackinder, Mahan and Haushofer, framed the globe as a chessboard for power acquisition. To this day, with the aid of grand think-tanks and institutional power, the West deems to dictate their norms upon the rest of the world. But it is time to move beyond this imperial grammar of coercion, control and conquest, toward a philosophy of coexistence, reciprocity and shared stewardship of the Earth. This new paradigm calls for a re-centring of geopolitics - not just as strategy, but as a phenomenology of perception. It is not merely about borders and treaties, but about how people and nations conceive of their space and time, and their roles within history. Geopolitics, rightly understood, becomes a metaphysical inquiry: what does it mean to belong to a place, to a people, and to a planet? Globalisation has expanded our awareness, but not necessarily our understanding. While information is abundant, the frameworks to process that information remain narrow and often distorted. Hence, the call is not for more data - but for new ways of seeing, new epistemologies that are local, rooted and holistic. Amidst the tremors of the Russia-Ukraine and Gaza-Israel wars, the old tectonic plates of Cold War polarity are shifting once again. But the fault lines no longer divide just East and West — they run deeper, between those who cling to a unipolar order and those who envision a world of plural sovereignties — between a Global South and a Global North. The rise of multipolar alliances like BRICS, SCO and BRI — signals not simply new blocs of power, but new ontologies of global existence, and call upon nations to come forward and rewrite their own fates in these times of eventfulness and fortuity. This transition is not without danger. At stake is more than military alignment - it is the philosophical soul of the world. Will we remain enslaved to binary models of capitalism and socialism, consumption and control? Or can we, as a species, forge a new path - one that values sustainability over speed, ethics over exploitation, and memory over myopia? In a world increasingly beset by existential threats — climate collapse, nuclear peril, pandemics and moral exhaustion — the urgency is clear. We cannot afford to continue geopolitics as usual. The age of conquest must give way to the age of consciousness. In his Zamana-e-Hazir Ka Insan, Iqbal has lamented upon the condition of modern man of today. Under the sway of modernism, he has become detached from soul, and is divided within and without, the same with nations. Ishq na-paid o khird megzadsh soorat-e-maar Aqal ko taba-e-farman-e-nazar kar na saka Dhoondne wala sitaron ki guzrgahon ka Apne afkar ki dunya mein safar kar na saka Apni hikmat ke kham-o-paich mein uljha aesa Aj tak faisla-e-nafa-o-zarar kar na saka Jis ne suraj ki shuaon ko giraftar kiya Zindagi ki shab-e-tareek sehar kar na saka! Geopolitics, too, suffers this alienation. It has become a machine without spirit, a calculation devoid of compassion. To heal it, we must reintroduce the human agent - not merely as a player of power, but as a seeker of wisdom and compassion. The faltering US hegemony that stands exposed through its failures in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria, and its economic hollowness that has led it to a trade war with the world, point to the fragility of imperial overreach. The world no longer revolves around a single centre. The end of the petrodollar era, the emergence of Eastern-led diplomacy, and the erosion of Western moral authority, all suggest a spiritual exhaustion at the core of the dominant order. It also points to a possible clash of civilisations, an Armageddon, because the West want to hold on to its unsustainable status quo. In contrast, China's geopolitical strategy seems animated by reproachment, not rivalry. Whether in its overtures toward peace between Hamas and the PLO, or in its mediations between Iran and Saudi Arabia, China appears to be cultivating a diplomacy grounded not in control, but in harmony. This may not be idealism — it may be realism reframed through a different civilisational lens. But the question remains: will this new multipolarity lead to balance or to fragmentation? Can we imagine a geopolitics no longer driven by Darwinian struggle, but by dialogical mutuality? For geopolitics to evolve, it must cease to be the monopoly of elites and become the shared discourse of humanity. It must move from the war room to the classroom, from the treaty table to the kitchen table. It must speak to the sacred, the everyday, the moral, and the ecological. My book, my journey, starts with and concludes upon the fact that geopolitics is not about states, but about the state of the soul. It is about how civilisations define themselves, how they treat the Earth, and how they imagine the future. The world does not need another empire - it needs another ethics. Not a new war, but a new wisdom. To rethink geopolitics from the East is to recall what was forgotten, to restore what was broken, and to re-enchant what was rendered mechanical. It is not a return to ancient glories, but a recommencement of the human journey — together, on shared ground, beneath a shared sky. And the Book is a first calling that needs to be fortified by several other calling from observers and thinkers in the field.
Time of India
02-05-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
How Canada made America great
Donald Trump's provocative, pointless threats to annex Canada helped Mark Carney win that country's recent election. Now it will represent the prime minister's defining challenge. #Pahalgam Terrorist Attack India's Rafale-M deal may turn up the heat on Pakistan China's support for Pakistan may be all talk, no action India brings grounded choppers back in action amid LoC tensions A hostile America presents a potentially existential threat to Canada, which is large but exquisitely vulnerable to US pressure. And while Americans understand the importance of the trade relationship, they may not realize just how crucial a friendly Canada is to their security and status as a global superpower — or just how much Trump risks squandering strategic blessings the US has long enjoyed. The US-Canada border hasn't always been peaceful. Americans unsuccessfully invaded Canada, then under British control, during the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812. In the latter contest, the Great Lakes saw ferocious naval combat. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Incredible, the TV box everyone is talking about: Access all channels ? Techno Mag Undo Raids, border disputes and military crises were common in the subsequent decades. The US and Britain nearly fought in the 1840s, over the placement of the frontier between the Oregon Territory and British Columbia. The forging of modern Canada from individual colonies in 1867 was partially a response to the surging strength of the colossus to the south. Well into the 20th century, Canadian leaders curried political favor by taking a hard line against US influence. Strategists in other parts of the Anglosphere harbored dark visions of where an American takeover might lead. In 1904, Britain's Halford Mackinder published his seminal essay, 'The Geographical Pivot of History,' warning that an aggressive hegemon in the Old World would threaten freedom everywhere. Yet Mackinder also worried about the growth of American power in the New World. Live Events It was vital to keep the US from grabbing Canada, he wrote, because 'if all North America were a single Power Britain would, indeed, be dwarfed.' This American empire would overturn the global balance and ultimately break Britain's hold on the seas. An America nakedly acquisitive enough to grab Canada, Mackinder feared, might terrorize the larger world. ALSO READ: Liverpool fans caused earth tremor. Shocking science behind their title celebrations explained That didn't happen, thankfully. During the 19th and early 20th centuries, a series of agreements settled and demilitarized the border. Americans and Canadians then bonded in battle against other, greater threats. The two nations cooperated to stymie a succession of autocratic aggressors in two world wars and the Cold War. Canadian forces fought and died in America's Middle Eastern wars of the early 21st century. The emergence of strategic amity, in turn, enabled commercial unity: the emergence of a North American economic bloc that includes Mexico but features the US and Canada as its prosperous, developed core. The benefits were obvious for Canada, whose prosperity, integrity and survival would have been at risk against a bellicose, peerless US. But Americans, too, should fear the malignant drift in relations, because the US has reaped a strategic bonanza from having a close ally to the north. The military and security integration is profound. The US and Canada share intelligence as freely as any two sovereign states, through the larger, 'Five Eyes' alliance (which includes Britain, Australia and New Zealand). Canada hosts early warning radars and other military assets that protect the aerial approaches to the US; its vast, inhospitable Arctic is a formidable barrier against hostile encroachment. Whatever the contemporary deficiencies of Canada's military posture — and they are many — the country still constitutes America's first line of defense. ALSO READ: 'My wife gets very upset...': Trump unveils new impression criticising transgender weightlifters during Alabama speech Comity with Canada also frees the US to be a global power. Countries with insecure land borders deplete their strength near home. Countries that are invulnerable on their frontiers roam far and wide. The US could not have ridden to the rescue of distant nations in World War I and World War II, or stationed its troops around the Eurasian periphery in the Cold War, had it faced serious threats along a 5,500-mile border that mostly lacks natural obstacles. A pacific relationship with Canada is a prerequisite to shaping the wider world. There's no guarantee the US will keep reaping that benefit if Trump keeps threatening Canadian sovereignty. Carney isn't itching for confrontation; he won't preemptively rip up longstanding intelligence and military ties. But the prime minister may de-risk US-Canada relations by forging new economic and security partnerships. His government has already been exploring closer ties to the UK and Europe. Trump is tempting an American neighbor to seek security by aligning with outside powers — exactly what US presidents spent more than two centuries trying to avoid. ALSO READ: Kanye West unleashes explosive rant over custody battle with Kim Kardashian, appeals to Musk and Trump Finally, if the hard-power case for restraint is compelling, a broken relationship with Canada will tax America's diplomatic soul. Fundamentally, the persistence of an independent Canada speaks to the basic strategic decency of Americans, who chose — eventually — to coexist with a country that, by the 20th century, they probably could have conquered instead. The US-Canada relationship is thus a marker of America's identity as a country that uses its strength responsibly, to uphold a tolerable, broadly beneficial world order. It is also a prime example of the difference between the US and the land-hungry revisionist powers Washington has typically tried to contain. Trump may not see much downside in beating up on a weaker country. But in military, geo-strategic and moral terms, the embittering of US-Canada ties will bring a heavy price.
