Geoffroy d'AspremontForeign Policy II - Dr Ann Hughes "Discuss the importance of location in states' foreign policy behaviour and assess how technological change has affected the significance of location."

Geoffroy d’Aspremont

Foreign Policy II – Dr Ann Hughes

“Discuss the importance of location in states’ foreign policy behaviour and assess how technological change has affected the significance of location.”

At the beginning of the Twentieth century, some geographers, such as E. C. Semple, considered that geographical factors influenced all human activities and therefore the policy-makers. On the other hand, modern geographers and political scientists believe that human behaviour is not influenced by geography and that the former depends only on human decisions to exploit the geographical possibilities (Reynolds, 1994). The geographers ‘opinion has thus changed after fifty years and after two world wars. Scientific advances and especially military improvement have contributed to this evolution of minds (Reynolds, 1994). In spite of this technological improvement, the geographical location remains one of the most fundamental factors that influence state’s foreign policy behaviour. In its first part, this essay will demonstrate how the different elements, such as the terrain, the sea proximity, the borders and the neighbours, of states’ geographical location influences its foreign policy by some characteristics like having access or not to the sea, the strategic military situation and the distances. In its second part, it will consider how much the technological improvements have affected the importance of the locations of states.

First, having access to the sea is a major factor that influences state’s foreign policy. This idea was particularly dominating in the nineteenth century, such as explained by Mahan an English geographer. Indeed, movement by sea was easier and all land masses are surrounded by oceans so that a country with good access to the sea had more chance to become an influential power than a landlocked state (Dougherty, Pfaltzgraff, 1971). The United Kingdom in the nineteenth century is a good example of this statement because of excellent navy. Moreover, coastline is an excellent defensive border. For instance, Britain is could defend itself against invasions by sea but was also sufficiently close to the continent to strike at a potential threat. That implies of course a strong military navy to defend the metropolitan coasts as well as the national interest around the world. The importance of access to the sea is undeniable but a country also needs such elements such good harbour installations as well as merchant and military navy to ensure independence.

However, landlocked situation influences foreign policy in a negative way. The fact of being landlocked causes a loss of independence and a weakness towards neighbours. Indeed, the external trade depends either on the friendly attitudes of the neighbours but also on its communication’s infrastructures (Hodder, 1997). Former Soviet Caspian republics can not export oil or natural gas without a specific Russian approval. Moreover the need of a corridor to attain the sea is sometimes a casus belli. One of the reasons why Iraq stormed Iran in 1980 is Saddam wanted to enlarge the Iraqi’s coastline, the famous Shatt-al-Arab. At ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

Secondly, a state’s foreign policy depends on its borders. The boundaries of a state have to be protected but may sometimes merge with natural borders such as rivers or mountain ranges that are natural protection. Even though Great Britain has no borders to defend, France needs to protect his coastlines as well as his eastern boundary. Other good example comes from Switzerland where the natural protection of the Alps permitted a neutral and isolationist policy (Holsti, 1995). The borders’ security is an important factor which influence foreign policy because the state’s sovereignty depends on the border’s integrity. This fact has led some states to develop an important military force. Prussia developed a good military organisation because of its large borders with powerful neighbours (Reynolds, 1994). Alliances such as NATO helped to preserve the sovereignty of member states during the Cold War. Boundaries can also be a root of tension between states. For instance, “the lack of fit between the demographic distribution of nationalities and the boundaries of states” (Holsti, 1995, p59) as well as the multicultural character of some states conduct to war. Another argument is the size of the country and that of its borders. The Soviet Union was more threaten than United States because of its large borders with Europe, Islam and China. Nevertheless the extent of their territory gave the USSR the possibility to spread resources, population and industry and so to be less vulnerable.

In parallel, neighbours take part in an important role in states’ foreign policy. The relations that a state has established with a more powerful neighbour are very different than a relationship with weak neighbours: demands to territory, incursions, control over territorial assets, or favourable treaties can be used by the stronger one (Holsti, 1995). Take the case of Finland which, after the Second World War, was forced by the Soviet Union to stay neutral. Moreover, neighbouring some states can influence your relations with some others. Turkey was an important ally of the United States during the Cold War because of its position near the Soviet Union (in order to implant nuclear missiles targeting USSR) and near the Middle East (to control Oil).

Thirdly, the distances play as well an important role in the foreign policy. On the one hand, the detachment from threatening countries permits a better security. For instance, the United-States are well positioned between two Oceans and friendly countries and, moreover, countries like Iraq and North Korea are far away. The only problem came from Cuba but after the Cuba missile crisis and the Collapse of the Soviet Union, this island is not a threat anymore. On the other hand, the distances from natural resources (and so the control of strategic points becomes important, see below) are essential. Countries without oil resources depend on the Middle East and the stability of this area. Possession of natural resources increases freedom of manoeuvre and vice-versa. States without resources have to rely on means such as trade.

Finally, the possession or control of some strategic points, such as straits or canals, permits countries to have more power in international relations. Control of straits and therefore the trade routes was fundamental in the foreign policy of Great Britain. The Turkish straits created vulnerability for Turkey because Great powers have had an interest in gaining control over them in order to have access to Mediterranean for Russia or to the Black Sea for Great-Britain and France (Holsti, 1995). Today, The Panama Canal is still controlled by the United States. British and American military bases are installed in Cyprus, near the Middle East and the Oil routes.

All these arguments underline the importance of the location in states’ foreign policy behaviour. Nevertheless, technological improvements set a serious question mark against this importance. “In a Geographical sense, location does not of course change at all, but the political significance of location, in the sense of its contribution to the capacity to influence the behaviour of others, does change – as a result, for instance, of changes in technology”(Reynolds, 1994, p126). Indeed, the means of communication, and transport and their military applications have deeply changed in the last two centuries and this is a question at which we must take a close look.

First of all, technological change has reduced the significance of distance. Railroads allow easier control of the whole territory or the ability to send troops quickly to borders. Motorized transportation changes issues of the battlefield and the tanks are indispensable for a good army. McKinder argued that the technology gave to land powers the dominant position even if sea power stays vital (Dougherty, Pfaltzgraff, 1971). Later the airplane permitted to reach far points in a short time. All part of the globe became reachable and so reduced the importance of location. Countries naturally protected by sea such as Great Britain or United States were stormed by air during the Second World War and recently the eleventh of September 2001. A strong air force is obligatory to assure the state’s security or to lead a war.

Next the invention of the nuclear bomb and most recently the intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM), which disrupted international relations and the balance of power, also modified the importance of location of states in foreign policy. Indeed these missiles have an unequalled range and a power of destruction. Geographical elements such as distances, size or natural protections no longer have any effect against theses weapons. Nevertheless the United States project to develop an anti-missiles shield, SDI Defence, and, in reaction, Russian president Putin just declared his willingness to furnish Russia new kinds of Nuclear Missiles.

However, others elements moderate the importance of technology over location in foreign policy. First of all, the most technological advances are developed by the richest countries and they do not share these. These countries have the strongest and the most equipped armies and can still take advantages of their particular locations. Moreover, a large gross national product per capita is needed to build up modern weapons or ABC (Atomic-Bacteriologic-Chemical) weapons, except of course in Iraq, Russia and China (Reynolds, 1994). Thus the same countries that can build these weapons are always the same. Next, nuclear weapons are above all deterrence and can be used today by a state’s government. A Nuclear attack by the United States against rogue states should not be considered as likely. Moreover, a lot of countries possess the same kind of technologies. Lastly, one can contend that the impact of technological advances is neutralised by itself. For instance ICBM is neutralized by SDI and maybe SDI by new Russians missiles.

In conclusion, technological advances have only slightly affected the importance of location in the foreign policy behaviour. It permits to strong states to diminish, to some extent, the disadvantages of their locations. As for weak states, they try to take advantage of their locations to fill their lack of technology. In spite of his modern army, the Soviet army was unable to destroy the resistance in the Mountainous Afghanistan. America can invade Iraq and Afghanistan with its advanced weapons but has neither shattered the Iraqis’ resistance nor captured Bin-Laden.

Bibliography

Barry Buzan, People, states and fear; an agenda for international security studies in the post-cold war era, New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1991, 96-145.
James E. Dougherty and Robert L. Pfaltzgraff, Geographical factors of national power in Contending theories of International relations, New-York: Longman, 2001, Chapter 2
A.J.R. Groom, M. Lights eds, Contemporary International Relations, a guide to theory, London, Pinter publisher, 1994, Chapter 2
Dick Hodder ed., Land-locked states of Africa and Asia, London: Frank Cass, 1998.
K.J. Holsti, International Politics, a framework for analysis, New Jersey: Prentis Hall, 1995, 965-107/275-277
Philip Alan Reynolds, An Introduction to international relations, London: Harlow Longman, 1994, Chapters 1, 4, 5.

E.C. Semple, Influences of Geographic environment, Holt, New York, 1911 in Reynolds,

Speech of the Russian ambassador to Iran in Tehran on 10th of December 1995. (Oil and Gas prospects in the Caspian region conference, Tehran, Institute of Political and International Studies, 11-12 December 95) in Dick Hodder ed, 1997, p5

Defined by G.L. “as a small political or administrative unit located between and separating two larger power” Ingalls (Buffer States: Outlining and Expanding Existing Theory," in Buffer Systems in World Politics, 1986 John Chay and Tom Ross, editors.

For a good explanation about weak states, see K.J. Holsti, 1997, Chapter 3 or Barry Buzan,2002 p96-107.

In 1962, American spy plane discovered soviet missile launcher sites in Cuba. Thus the US territory became accessible by soviet nuclear missiles. The crisis was finally resolved after and arrangement between Khrushchev and Kennedy.

Satellite Defence Initiative which was first announced in the years 80 by President Reagan and called “Star Wars”, is defined in the penguin Dictionary of International Relations such as a program aimed at making nuclear weapons “impotent and obsolete”.

http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-3220,36-387513,0.html