Geography Shapes Geopolitics

Yuba Nath Lamsal

Tim Marshal in ‘Prisoners of Geography’ says: “Geography has always been a prison of sorts — one that defines what a nation is or can be, and one from which our world leaders have often struggled to break free”. Countries cannot change geography but can only change and adjust their policies. Geography is a permanent feature with which states are required to adjust their foreign policy in commensurate with their national interest. 

What would have been our foreign policy priority if Himalayas had been in our southern border or if Nepal had been located in the Indian Ocean or Pacific Ocean rim? In such a case, our priorities and policies would have been definitely different. Thus, countries are what Tim Marshal says ‘prisoners of geography’. 

Boon and curse

Geography alone may not always be the lone determinant shaping foreign policy. But it is definitely a principal element with which countries are often required to adjust their policy priorities. Geography is the study of human relations with nature consisting of land, atmosphere, soil, oceans, rivers and climate. The geographical features shape human behaviour and also the behaviour of the country. Geography can be both boon and curse — boon if a country artfully and delicately handles the conditions created by geography.  

Geopolitics is the construct emanating out of the relationship of geography with other dynamics like history, economics, politics, culture and military might, etc. Geography continues to remain a permanent feature while other dynamics change. Geopolitical scenario and setting keep changing in the world. Geopolitics of 19th century was different from that of the 20th century and it is totally different now from what used be in the post-World War II or Cold War era.

The World War I was purely a European war and the rest of the world other than the European continent was least affected. The League of Nations was created in 1920 to foster world peace but failed to achieve its lofty goal. The World War II was an offshoot of European war but did have its wider impact in Europe and Asia. International alliances are the construct of these two world wars but became more visible only after the World War II.  

International or regional security alliances are made primarily out of threat perception. Countries make alliance to strengthen their collective power vis-à-vis their enemy so that they can either overpower the adversary or at least maintain deterrence.  The security alliance of World War I period changed in the World War II. The alliance of the World War II also changed after the war. In the post-World War II alliance, nemeses became bosom friends whereas allies turned into arch-enemies. US, UK and Russia were allies and fought against Nazi Germany, imperial Japan and fascist Italy in World War II. 

After the war the alliances changed diametrically in which Germany, Japan and Italy joined the US-led alliance whereas Soviet Union led the rival camp sharply dividing the world into two power blocs on ideological basis. The post-World War II period or the Cold War era was distinctly marked by bi-polar world order in which the United States and the Soviet Union were twin superpowers. Both superpowers created security alliances of different bands and brands. US created the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) cobbling together several countries on both sides of the North Atlantic Ocean primarily focussing on Europe to prevent westward expansion of Soviet Union’s influence. 

In response, Soviet Russia created Warsaw Pact with several East European countries and some in other continents. Other alliances and organisations were created by two superpowers to contain and counter one another in different regions.  Arnold Toynbee, British historian, well summed up the international bipolar world saying “All other states of the world today are in some measures dependent, most of them on US and few of them on Russia, but non-completely independent of the one or the other of the two powers”. 

Another group of poor, underdeveloped and weak countries that chose to refrain from joining neither of the two power blocs created a third cluster called Non-aligned Movement. But some influential members of this group, in a way or the other, had strategic and security pact with either of the two super powers. The late 1980s started witnessing a new global power equation.  After the disintegration of Soviet Union in 1991 and collapse of the Warsaw Pact, the world turned into unipolar order with USA remaining the only superpower or unrivalled power. 

However, the dawn of the 21st century brought a new global geopolitical shift and change in international balance of power. The world now is moving towards multipolar phenomenon. China is constantly rising economically, militarily and technologically while Russia is seeking to stage a comeback in the world of power politics as a new hawk. Be it the unipolar, bipolar or multi-polar world, the United Nation, which was created after the World War II, has been able to accomplish what the League of Nations could not — preventing another World War. 

Precious commodity

But numerous wars and violent conflicts have taken place in different parts of the world behind which big powers are responsible. Peace is still a precious commodity in the world despite the existence of UN with tall idea of global peace. The world is at the crossroads of rivalry between great powers. Asia has been the new theatre of this geopolitical rivalry marked by Asia-focused alliances and counter alliances of different names and shades. 

Nepal is faced with unique but challenging geopolitical condition that is dictated by geography. This geopolitical reality has conditioned our position and also provided leverage in the foreign policy and diplomatic conduct. Nepal is a landlocked country surrounded by India in three sides — South, East and West — and by China in the north with high Himalayan range. This begs a wise, delicate and artful handling of our foreign policy and diplomacy with the geographic and geopolitical complexities. Only then can we assert our right and extract benefits at the best interest of Nepal because we cannot change our geography. 

(The author is former ambassador and former chief editor of this daily. lamsalyubanath@gmail.com)