The inception of the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC), revised the old classical geopolitical theories in search of their rationality in contemporary global geopolitics. Is this a return to Mackinder’s Heartland or is there more power in Spykman’s Rimland? In fact, the IMEC is all about the connectivity and consequent geopolitical advantage of Spykman’s Rimland. This is a strategic rebalancing within the Rimland and beyond. It is necessary to reevaluate its political and strategic usefulness with altered geopolitical scenarios.
The basis for judging the rationality of theory in contemporary geopolitical evolutions cannot be the old power structure that no longer lasts. The US-Soviet conflict of the 1970s and 1980s justified Mackinder’s hypothesis, while the decline in US-Soviet-Russian power rivalry and the rise of multi-power centers injected more power into the Rimland by Spykman. The rise of China and India, the rivalry between the United States of America and China, the continuing political turbulence in the Middle East and the South China Sea, and the diminishing Russian influence are the keys to elucidating the changing centers of power since Mackinder’s Heartland to Spykman’s Rimland. .
Nicolas John Spykman, known as a key disseminator of European and American geopolitics, proposed the idea of ”Rimland” as opposed to Mackinder’s much-discussed Heartland theory. Spykman’s thesis “He who controls the Rimland rules Eurasia; “Whoever governs Eurasia controls the destinies of the world”; was published in his seminal book “The Geography of Peace” in 1944. Contrary to his contemporary and some older ideas from the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Spykman was convinced that Rimland, a combination of land and sea powers, is intended to manage the “control of the world” or “balance of power of the world” in the current strategic connotation.
Spykman’s Rimland is the littoral states or coastal regions surrounding Eurasia and stretching from northwestern Europe to the coast of China. Rimland has three key sectors: the European littoral states, the Middle East and the Asian monsoon lands that include India and China. In Spykman’s scheme of world geopolitics, the core of the world political-economic system was Rimland, not Heartland. One of the key reasons was accessibility. In addition to natural resources and topography, Rimland had the advantage of connectivity to major land and sea transit routes.
Both Mackinder and Spykman spoke of conflict. American political scientist Michael P. Gerace’s understanding of “conflict” in Mackinder and Spykman’s scheme of geopolitical thought appears to be rational to some extent. He argued that Mackinder’s impression of conflict follows the linear pattern between Heartland and sea power, while Spykman’s conflict is two-dimensional, first, between Heartland and sea power, and second, between the different power centers of Rimland with o without allies or friends. . The interpretation of the second postulate has to do with the changing balance of power, the rise of multilateralism and greater fluidity in strategic maneuvers within the key power centers of the Rimland, which seems close to the current geopolitical scenario. Gerace’s article “Between Mackinder and Spykman: Geopolitics, Containment, and After,” published in Comparative Strategy magazine, highlighted how power was eroding and how other powers were supplanting the old powers that were fading through the centers of power. emerging in the world.
Whether geopolitics, geoeconomics or geostrategy, “geo” is one of the determining vectors. Understanding “geo” or “geography” makes a difference. Illustrating the role of geography in his geopolitical thinking, Spykman argued: “Although the entire politics of a state does not derive from its geography, it cannot escape from it…. Because geography does not argue, it simply is.” Spykman, while narrating the theoretical framework in “Geography and Foreign Policy,” seems impressed by Altered Mahan’s geopolitical thinking. Mahan, in his influential volume “The Influence of Sea Power on History, 1660-1783,” argued the role of sea power’s importance in national historical preeminence.
When analyzing geopolitics, it is necessary to keep in mind that geography is not only about the description of the earth’s surface, contemporary geography is also about regions, interactions and movements. It deals with the spatial distributions and connections of various socio-economic phenomena. Connectivity, natural or man-made, has always been the cornerstone of geography; In addition to the political-economic benefits, it is also linked to changing the behavior of states. Be it the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor or China’s Belt and Road initiative, there is the potential to at least alter the regional balance of power. Natural resources are important, but in a globalized world the movement of resources is equally important, and that can only be guaranteed through the two key elements of geography: connectivity and technology. PIEM is about economic cohesion, reducing political crudeness within the Middle East and between three sections of Rimland-India-Middle East and the western coast of Europe, and little tilting of the balance of power in favor of the United States, India and Europe. .
Disclaimer
The opinions expressed above are the author’s own.
END OF ARTICLE