CONCEPTUAL BACKGROUND

Geopolitics is the study of international relation and conflicts from a geographical

perspective. The geographical perspective suggests the location, distance and distribution of

natural and human resources which have significant influence on international relation

(Braden and Shelly, 2000). The study of geographical concept of place, location, distance,

direction, diffusion and regions form very important questions. The basic fact which comes

first in the study of geography is “where is it” meaning the location of particular place and

its other geographical attributes. The location of any place describes its importance

geographically, geo-strategically and resource wise.

DEFINITIONS

A myriad of definitions exist concerning the term “geopolitics”. The term has been

surrounded by controversies right since the beginning, when the Swedish Professor Rudolf

Kjellen (1864-1922) used this term in the early 20 th century. Over the years, the term

‘geopolitics’ has been used and manipulated by policymakers, academicians, administrators,

politicians and diplomats to create a logic to serve his or her own political, socioeconomic

and strategic agenda. Although geopolitics has been defined differently by different people,

yet there exists a common ground.

According to American Heritage Dictionary, simply geopolitics is “the study of

relationships between politics and geography, demography and economics, especially with

respect to foreign policy of a nation” (American Heritage Dictionary, 2000).

From another viewpoint geopolitics is defined as, “ the abstract, geopolitics

traditionally indicates the links and causal relationships between political power and

geographic space; in concrete terms it is often seen as a body of thought assaying specific

strategic prescriptions based on the relative importance of land power and sea power in

world history. The geopolitical tradition had some consistent concerns, like the geopolitical

correlates of power in world politics, the identification of international core areas, and the

relationships between naval and terrestrial capabilities” (Osterud, 1988).

When Rudolf Kjellen coined the term geopolitics, he was inspired by Retzel’s work

of political geography as Bruno de Almeida Ferrari stated “political geography deals with

the study of existing relations between spatial facts and political process and therefore along

with the spatial analysis of political phenomena. It concerns the spatial attributes of political

process or can be seen as the study of existing relations between spatial facts and political

process” (Ferrari, 2005).

On the other hand, geopolitics represents the study of geographic distribution of

power among the states of international system focusing on the rivalries of the major power.

Another version and definition of geopolitics hinges on the theoretical postulate that,

the state’s foreign policies are set to determine her goals. Geopolitics and geopolitical

analysis, constitutes the study of international politics seen from a spatial geocentric

perspective. Political geography handles the intersection of geographical factors and

politics, the intersection of political power and space, while geopolitics tries to provide a

geographic interpretation and studies the geographical aspect of political phenomena.

The theoretical aspects differ from each other in all well-known definition of

geopolitics. But aspect of geographic interaction of political phenomena is wider and more

comprehensive. According to Tuomi (1998) “the theoretical geopolitics studies the relation

between physical space and international politics, it develops a model for the spatial

division of the world into cooperating and competing parts for historical, economic and

political reasons and analyzes how the participants interpret the political, economic and

military consequences of this division. The geopolitics of a state or other territorially

defined society means its pursuit of geographically dimensioned aims that are connected

with its economic and political position security and culture”.

This definition covers almost all aspects of political decisions of any state or

territorial space. The definition covers historical, economic and political factors interpreted

in a political phenomenon. The cultural and security aspects are also included. In his

definition, Toumi also gives a base to define a new geopolitical condition especially after

the Cold War and the tragic events of September 11, 2001 .

Many experts and academicians tried to define geopolitics in different manners. The study

of geopolitics has undergone a major renaissance during the past decade. Addressing a gap

in the Geopolitical Journal, this journal seeks to explore the theoretical implications of

contemporary geopolitics and geopolitical change with particular reference to territorial

problems and issues of state sovereignty. Multidisciplinary in its scope, Geopolitics

includes all aspects of the social sciences with particular emphasis on political geography,

international relations, the territorial aspects of political science and international law. The

journal seeks to maintain a healthy balance between systemic and regional analysis.

“ Geopolitics traditionally indicates the links and causal relationships between political power

and geographic space; in concrete terms it is often seen as a body of thought assaying specific

strategic prescriptions based on the relative importance of land power and sea power in world

history. The geopolitical tradition had some consistent concerns, like the geopolitical

correlates of power in world politics, the identification of international core areas, and the

relationships between naval and terrestrial capabilities” (Osterud, 1988).

Geopolitics is studying geopolitical systems. The geopolitical system , in the opinion of

Valadimir Toncea, is the “ensemble of relations between the interests of international

political actors, interests focused to an area, space, geographical element or ways” ( Toncea,

2006).

“Geopolitics as a branch of political geography is the study of reciprocal relations between

geography, politics and power and also the interactions arising from combination of them

with each other. According to this definition, geopolitics is a scientific discipline and has a

basic science nature” (Hafeznia, 2006).

Houshofer (1942) described the field of geopolitics as “to investigate the relationship of

political events to significant part of the earth’s surface”.

Therefore, ‘Geopolitics’ as a term is adopted by geographers to describe an area of

geographic enquiry that considers space to be important in understanding the constitution of

international relation. Geographical investigation can be carried out at various levels where

its dimensions can be studied by adopting various approaches. People from different fields

and subjects may adopt any of them, but three approaches are mainly adopted by

geographers. The contemporary global geopolitical order is inclusive of three approaches viz.

the power approach, the ideological approach, and the political economy approach.

Approches to study geopolitics

The Power Approach

The power approach looks at the relationship between nations and examines their ability to

influence or change the behaviour of each other. Since the middle of the twentieth century,

this approach has experienced a dramatic shift of emphasis of power centre. The bipolarity

of the 1940s and 1950s with the domination of the erstwhile superpowers, the United States

of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic, is replaced by multi polarity of the

post Cold War era. The development of newer and stronger nations and the growth of multi-

polarity is now experienced with the emergence of western Europe, Japan and China as

significant economic and industrial powers. Thus, the geopolitical equilibrium was

preserved by a hierarchy of powerful states developing at the expense of smaller and weaker

nations. But, after the Cold War and the breakup of the USSR, the situation has changed.

Now US is the sole super power able to influence and change the behaviour of other

nations. The assumption of geo-politician that, some European countries and Japan are

allies of the US and its military as well as economic supremacy, allows it to hold the

opinion that US alone is able to take decisions directly and dictates allies as “either with us

or with the terrorists” an example of power approach of geopolitics.

THE IDEOLOGICAL APPROACH

The ideological approach is used as a basis upon which the state can justify territorial

action, domestically and globally. In the case of the US, it has expanded its frontiers like

“by gaining on a mission to civilize the wildness,” thus gaining the territory that increased

its geopolitical significance. Today, under the pretext of terrorism, the US is trying to justify

her actions in Afghanistan and Iraq. The USSR had also used ideological reasoning to

vindicate military intervention whenever and where ever socialism was threatened from a

source within its own boundaries or beyond. It is this ideological approach that led Cohen

(1965) to formulate a hypothesis in his book, Geography and Politics in a Divided World,

on shatter belt region, which is an extension of the work done by Fairgrieve (1941) who

formulated the theory of “Crush Zone.” Here Cohen described a shatter belt as a “large

strategically located region that is occupied by a number of conflicting states and is caught

between the conflicting interests of adjoining great powers” (Cohen, 1974). This region,

thus, includes South East Asia and Middle East because of their natural oil reserves.

Political and economic fate is of vital concern to the emerging powers. Today, Central Asia

is a new example of shatter belt because of oil, gas and its geopolitical location.

However, within these regions, there is a clash of culture and politics among various groups.

Further this region is characterized by divers geographical, historical, cultural and political

settings that make this area highly unsuitable and hence, provides the emerging powers with

the ideological basis to justify territorial expansion. Thus, this region falls within the

preview of the ideological approach of geopolitics.

The POLITICAL Economy Approach

The political economy approach assumes that, geopolitics cannot be understood without

fully considering the global economy and who gets what, where and how? Wallerstein

(1930) considered the link between the process of capital accumulation, resource

competition and foreign policy in a study which thrusts the US the leading role and

downgraded the USSR, since it had far limited economic capabilities. However, this

approach relegates the importance of political and cultural process at a state level, though

they have very influential role in determining the international relation.

All the three approaches are incorporated in the works of Halford Mackinder, Haushofer,

Cohen, Gray and other leading geopolitical thinkers.

History of Geopolitics

Whatever the definition one may adopt today is a result of a long tradition of development

of political geography.

The history of geopolitics began with the development of Organic State Theory

postulated by Friedrich Ratzel (1901). A distinguished and prolific geographer Ratzel was

originally trained in biology, chemistry and other sciences. He was influenced by both

Darwin’s discovery and social Darwinism. In his written work, especially his classic

Politische Geographie (1896), he used similes and metaphors from biology in his analysis

of political science and geography to comparing state with an organism.

“The state is a land and man is linked to state by land. Man is linked by the idea of state

conforming to natural law with the development tied to the natural environment. State is

just like a living organism, it expands and shrinks. State needs food in form of lebensraums

(living space) and resources and they constantly compete for them. A state like organism

must grow or die (Ratzel, 1896)”. Ratzel described following seven laws of the state growth

1. The space of state grows with the expansion of the population having the same

culture.

2. Territorial growth follows other aspects of development.

3. A state grows by absorbing smaller units.

4. The frontier is a peripheral organ of the state that reflects the strength and growth of

the state hence it is not permanent.

5. State, in the course of its growth, is contagious and increases in the process of

transmission.

6. The impetus for growth comes to primitive state from a more or highly developed

civilization.

7. The trend toward territorial growth is contagious and increases in the process of

transmission.

Out of the seven laws, the fourth and sixth laws became more famous because they

inspired Hitler to take aggressive stand in his foreign policy towards east.

Ratzel did not use the term geopolitics, but his Law of State’s Growth provides the

fundamental base to geopolitical reasoning of that time. After Ratzel, Kjellen used the term

geopolitics who was influenced by Ratzel.

Rudolf Kjellen (1864-1922) was also a Professor of Political Science at Uppsala. Unlike

Ratzel, Kjellen was not a careful scientist. Instead he took up Ratzel’s analogy and insisted

flatly that the state is an organism. He even titled his most important book Staten Some

Lifsform (State as an Organism, 1916). In this book, he described that there are five organs

of any state.

1. Kartopolitik: Government structure

2. Demopolitik: Population structure

3. Sociopolitik: Social structure

4. Oekopolitik: Economic structure

5. Geopolitik: Physical structure

This book, in which Kjellen coined the term Geopolitik, was translated into German in

1917 when Germany was losing the War. In this book, Kjellen defined geopolitik as “the

theory of states as geographic organism or phenomenon in space, i.e., as land territory, area

or most specifically as country” or the strategies of political organisms in space

(Kjellen,1917). After the War, this book drew the attention of German political scientists,

geographers and nationalists and they used this book for rebuilding Germany into a world

power. This book was subsequently used by Italy and Japan also.

Thus, Ratzel and Kjellen can be described as the fathers of the concept of geopolitics

because they drew the outline of geopolitics but still geopolitics was neither famous and nor

in practice among the statecraft by the intellectuals of that time. However , it drew attention

of many geographers, political scientist, policy makers and diplomats. One of them was

Mackinder, a famous political geographer of twentieth century. It was Mackinder who made

geopolitics a centre of statecraft and international politics. Theory of Heartland given by

Mackinder impacted international relation profoundly until the end of the Cold War. In

Germany Karl Haushofer began lecturing at University of Munich in 1919 and created a

rationalization for Nazi territorial expansion policies. The American professor Nicholas

Spykman (1938) presented Rim Land Theory in order to contradict the Heartland Theory.

This concept became part of the US policy of containment of the USSR and communism.

Meanwhile some of the scholars started focusing on the world next power instead of

their country or state in order to have a more realistic view of geopolitical or international

political behavior. They formed a global view of geopolitical affair and recommended it to

be followed by their governments. Alfred T. Mahan was also one of them. He was an

admiral in the US navy and produced about 200 books. He argued that in history, naval

forces became victorious in comparison to infantry.

Thus, geopolitical traditions are very old which can be divided into five geopolitical

orders:

1. The British geopolitical order

2. The imperialist geopolitical order / geopolitical order of inter-imperial rivalry

3. The Cold War geopolitical order or Cold War geopolitics

4. The new geopolitical order

5. The geopolitics after 9/11

Most of the authors and theorists of geopolitics identify only three of above

orders and don’t consider British Geopolitical Order as a organised geopolitical order.

They initiate with the writings of Ratzel, Kjellen and Mackinder and divide the

historical development of geopolitical thinking into three major categories. Since,

geopolitical changes due to 9/11 are recent phenomena; therefore, they do not find full

mention in the writing and views of most geopolitical thinkers of the present time.

However, this event has significantly changed the foreign policies of all the countries

of the world; therefore, it has been studied separately. But one cannot deny the

importance of British or Pre-Mackinder geopolitical order as a separate geopolitical

order, although, the term geopolitics was not coined that time, yet the phenomenon

had very much started with the British colonial rule. After Britain’s policy of global

political economy, other European nations indulged in rivalries with the Britain and

among themselves also. This is called imperialist geopolitical order, which began with

the organic state theory and ended after World War II in 1948.

The Cold War between the US and the USSR started just after WWII and was

dragged until 1989 when USSR recalled his forces from Afghanistan and broke-up into 15

separate nations. After the collapse of the USSR, the era of new geopolitics began in which

US emerged as a dictator in global issues. The sudden change in the wake of 9/11 provided

the US new opportunities to resettle his global policies especially in Central Asia which is

geo-strategically very important. The main agenda of the US policy in Central Asia has

been to exploit its natural resources, geopolitically to achieve its security dimension and

strategically to maintain a status quo in the region by drawing a balance between Russia,

China and India.

The British Geopolitical Order

It was in Britain that the phenomenon of a global geopolitical order was started with

the beginning of the industrial revolution. With the passage of time clashes and rivalries

started, Britain lost its position as a single global leader and began a new geopolitical order

which is called Imperial Geopolitical Order or Imperialist Geopolitics.

Industrial revolution began in 1750 in Britain. As this revolution was started in Britain,

therefore, the advantages of it went to Britain single handedly. The first phase of industrial

revolution (1750–1850) which was characterized, mostly by innovation came in Britain. It

was during this period that Britain became the first industrial country from an agriculture-

based economy. Britain was followed by France, Belgium and Germany. The process began

in third or fourth decade of nineteenth century and in Russia in the seventh decade.

Because Britain transformed itself into an industrial country, for exporting its production

and getting raw material, it had to establish its market outside Britain and Europe.

Therefore, Britain used hard policy to maintain his industrial progress by the use of force

and diplomacy. To achieve this end in India, Africa, China and South East Asia, Britain

established its colonies. Since, there was no serious challenge from any other power

between 1815 and 1875, Britain enjoyed its supremacy. The period of rivalries started after

1875 when industrialization became a fast-developing phenomenon also in other European

countries and they also began to establish their business outside Europe.

Britain not only experienced an industrial revolution earlier than the rest of Europe

but traded and invested into other continents on a much larger scale also. Due to the

technological innovation and organizational efficiency in early nineteenth century British

industry produced goods for export and capital for investment.

Under the British patronage, market was effectively globalized as production for the

market replaced self sufficient economy. The British national economy became the base of

the world economy. The globalization of British economy in nineteenth century increased

the spatial scope of the world economy. The recycling of capital returned from overseas

investment made London the finance capital of world.

Britain did everything to maintain and restore the status quo of British supremacy. British

imperialism, mixed forces of trade, investment, diplomacy, military intervention and

ideology, represented the new kind of state-expedited growth of international economic

transactions.

There is a problem in overstating the achievements of free trade during the period

between 1825 and 1875. There were multilateral agreements governing international trade

before WWII. Until 1840, Britain itself remained largely protectionist and derived a

considerable share of government revenues from custom duties. The era of free trade started

in early 1860s when Britain and France signed the Cobden–Chevalier Commercial Treaty.

In 1838, a commercial treaty was also signed to allow British ships to sail through the

Bosporus. In the Black Sea, Turkey abolished internal duties on trade within the Ottoman

Empire and was granted the status of the most favored nation. Contemporary British

military diplomacy opened many countries of the world for international trade. The Treaty

of Nanking (1842) led to recognition of British diplomatic relations with China. After the

treaty, China opened five of its ports to British traders for opium trade and granted the

status of ‘most favored nation’ to Britain.

During 1870s, Britain began to lose its pivotal position within Europe and had to

sacrifice its industrial strength for free trade. In both respects, the rise of political economy

of Germany and marvellous economic growth of United States were most significant

developments. In particular, the newly united Germany was not willing to accept political

subsidiary to Britain either in Europe or outside.

Until the nineteenth century a new concept of statehood based on creation of nation

state came increasingly to the fore. These new states emerged on lingual , ethnic and

religious bases. The identity of state territorial sovereignty became fused with the fate of the

nation.

The Imperialist Geopolitical Order

After the decline of British global supremacy and the rise of Germany, USA, Russia

followed by Japan, Italy and France, the new period of inter imperial rivalries began in

Europe. Britain was the classic superpower on the globe but later Germany and France

started challenging Britain’s supremacy in Africa, Asia and even in Europe. The most

historically and geographically fated imperialist rivalry of the period was that of British and

German in central Europe, a rivalry that was at the crux of two murderous worldwide Wars

that claimed the lives of millions of people in twentieth century.

USA was a regional power before eighteenth century but after James Monroe (1823)

and Theodore Roosevelt (1905) US changed the situation and began the practice like a big

power. In 1823 Monroe declared “European power should not extend their system to any

portion of this hemisphere.” In 1905, Roosevelt became the president of USA and with him

sea power imperialism, anti colonial commercial expansionism and civilizational racism

also gained ground. He argued that America was a masterful race which should speak softly

but carry a big stick. Roosevelt corollary sought to give notice that the American

hemisphere was the special preserve of the United States.

In 1883, Berlin Conference was held in which British and other European powers divided

Africa for themselves. It was a clear sign of Britain’s willingness to continue with power

sharing with others.

When European powers were involved in China for expansion, Russia was also

trying to expand its influence in Asia, specially towards Afghanistan and China. In South

Asia, struggle started between Britain and Russia. Russia penetrated successfully in China

especially in Manchuria and Korean peninsula . Russia and China also signed a secret treaty

on June 3, 1896. Later on Russian expansion alarmed Japan and other European powers

especially Britain. To limit the influence of Russia in China and Korea, Japan and Britain

signed a treaty in 1902. Up to the first decade of twentieth century, new battlefields were

ready for global powers Africa and Asia. European powers, Russia, Japan and USA were

struggling with each other.

While the power struggle was on amongst these nations, some academicians and

politicians provided logical base for their expansion and involvement in other continents

and regions of the world.

Kjellen, Mackinder, Haushofer and Hitler were the founders of ideological

geopolitics who provided the intellectuals base for legitimization for state action and

intervention in Europe. Retzel, Kjellen, Hausfoher and Hitler, in Europe; Roosevelt and

Mahan, in America, made geopolitics as a form of power-knowledge. This

power/knowledge approach was born in an era of inter imperialist rivalry between 1870 and

1945. The period of imperialist rivalry between 1870- 1945 is also characterized by the

inception and development of power-knowledge approach which consequently originated

the development of ‘ideological geopolitics’ as propagated by Kjellen, Mackinder,

Haushofer and Hitler. In America Roosevelt popularized geopolitics as a form of power-

knowledge, the same work was done by Mahan in Asia, Russia and Japan. Thus, the

geopolitical struggle of this power was taken beyond the boundaries of Europe. One of the

main characteristics of the ideological geopolitics was proper intellectual base for the

legitimization of state’s extra- territorial intervention and control of territories in different

parts of the world.

The beginning of this intellectual pursuit of power- knowledge can be traced with the

publishing of Friedrich Retzel’s books The Laws of the Spatial Growth of States (1895) and

Political Geography (1896), and Kjellen’s work The State as an Organism (1916). But real

geopolitical saga started with historic work of Sir Halford J. Mackinder in 1904 when he

presented a paper at Royal Geographical Society in London entitled The Geographical

Pivot of History. This was a true milestone in geopolitical debate of that period. In his

paper, Mackinder reasoned that the Eurasian territory consisting of Eastern Europe and

Central Asia would become the source of a great power that would dominate Far East,

Southern Asia and Africa, what he called “World Island”. He presumed that this area

contained a substantial resource base capable of sustaining the world power significantly.

Thus, he formulated this famous hypothesis:

Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland.

Who rules the Heartland commands the World Island.

Who rules the World Island commands the world (Fig. 2.1).

Mackinder was the first geopolitical intellectual who presented global vision for the first

time. In his theory he divided the world into three parts:

Pivot Area

Inner or marginal crescent, and

Land of outer or insular crescent

PIVOT AREA—In this theory, pivot area was Russian state. According to Mackinder, Russia

has pivotal position on the World Island and after the railways development from Siberia to

Eurasia, Russia will be in position to control Heartland and at last will control the World

Island.

Geopolitical World after Mackinder

Figure -2.1Source:http://www.tortaharn.net/contents/images/stories//heartland_theory.gif

INNER OR MARGINAL CRESCENT—It is outside the pivot area. In great inner crescent

located are Germany, Austria, Turkey, India and China; and in the outer crescent are Britain,

South Africa, Australia, United States, Canada and Japan.

He reasoned that in the “present condition of the balance of power the pivot states,

Russia is not equivalent to peripheral state and there is room for equipoise in France” . But

soon after the railway development in Russia, Russia played an important role in balancing

the globe. He wrote “The Russian railway has a clear run of 6,000 miles from Wirballen in

the west to Vladivostok in the east. The Russian Army in Manchuria is a significant evidence

of mobile land power as the British army in South Africa was of sea power. The trans-

Siberian railway is still a single precarious line of communications. The space within the

Russian empire and Mongolia are so vast and there potentialities in population wheat, cotton,

fuel and metals so incalculably great, that it is inevitable that a vast economic world, more or

less apart, will there develop inaccessibility to oceanic commerce.”

Mackinder’s theory is important in the history of geopolitics for three reasons: (1)

for its bird’s eye global view, (2) for its division of globe into vast swaths of territory and

(3) for its sweeping story of geographic condition influencing on the course of history and

politics.

Mackinder gave high importance to ‘Pivot Area’ and declared that who will control

this area will control world island in this pivot, North Russia, Central Asia, Siberia and

some parts of East Europe was included. His assumption was that there are three epochs of

history which he named after the explorer Columbus. Each epoch is defined by dominant

dreams remember his stage metaphor and ‘Mobility of Power.’

With the era of geographical exploration and discovery at an end, Mackinder

suggested that history is now entering the post-Columbian epoch, an epoch of closed space

where an event in one part of the globe will have triple effect across the globe. More

significantly from a British imperial point of view, “trans continental railways are now

transmuting the condition of land power and now here can they have such effect as in the

closed Heartland of Eurasia. This is alarming to British Empire because it threatens to

change the balance of power between land power and sea power” (Mackinder 1904). He

also stated “The over stating of the balance of power in favor of the pivot state resulting in

its expansion over the marginal land of Eurasia, would permit the use of vast continental

resources for fleet building and the empire of the world would then be in sight” (Mackinder,

1904).

Some intellectuals criticized the Mackinder’s future vision because he neglected the

importance of organization in the development of power. He missed revolutionary

implications of air power for the twentieth century. He also marginalized the emergence of

USA which he strangely describes as an Eastern power and overestimated the strategic

significance of the vast space of the Russian “Heartland.”

During the Mackinder’s time United States emerged as a significant player on the

world’s stage. Just after it emerged, US also tried to expand her empire. After the defeat of

Spanish empire in 1893, US colonised Philippines and became the overlord of Cuba.

American expansion was motivated in part by the sea power doctrine of acquiring

overseas naval bases. The US also acquired the Hawaiian island and Guam. Mahan (1890)

and other prominent imperialist thinkers justified such expansion. Mahan argued in an

institutionally self-serving way that the path of national greatness lay in commercial and

naval powers.

Sea power imperialism masculinity, anti-colonial commercial expansionism and

civilizational racism came together when Roosevelt became president in 1901. Roosevelt

was a white supremacist who believed that there is natural hierarchy of white Anglo Saxons

at the top and a whole series of inferior races like Chinese, Latin American and Negroes.

Roosevelt practiced very aggressive form of geopolitics. He declared that American

hemisphere was the special preserve for USA. According to Roosevelt, US had right to

‘exercise as international police.’

“Chronic wrongdoing or an importance which results in general loosening of the ties

of civilized society may in America as elsewhere, ultimately require intervention by some

civilized nations, and in the western hemisphere the adherence of the United States to the

Monroe doctrine may force the United States however, reluctantly in flagrant case of such

wrongdoing or importance to the exercise of an international police” (Roosevelt, 1905).

Roosevelt also sought to formalize his geopolitical thinking to Monroe doctrine and

declared that European power should not extend their system to any portion of American

hemisphere. He asserted “In asserting the Monroe doctrine, in taking such steps as we have

taken in regard to Cuba, Venezuela and Panama and in endeavoring to circumscribe the

threat of War in far east, and to secure the open door in China, we have acted in our own

interest as well as in the interest of humanity at large” ( Roosevelt, 1905).

Thus, Roosevelt drew the line of influence of USA on the globe. In Europe,

Germany was emerging as a big power and threatening Britain’s hegemony. Situation

became worse after Germany’s defeat in the World War I and Versailles treaty pact in

which allied nations imposed very shameful conditions on Germany. But Hitler annulled all

pacts and conditions and raised a big military power. Haushofer a former military

commander turned geographer, after retirement from the German army gave a new

dimension to Hitler’s engagement in Europe and elsewhere. As per many other Germans

like Hitler and Hess he also felt that Versailles treaty had emasculated Germany into a

natural world power with a large advanced population that was reduced to living on

“narrow” territorial area. Consequently they all worked in their different ways to overthrow

the treaty of Versailles and make “Germany the world power again.” Haushofer started the

journal Zeitschrift fur Geopolitics ( The Journal of Geopolitics) in 1924. Haushofer was

impressed by social Darwinist ideas of his intellectual hero Retzel and admirer of

geopolitical master work of the Mackinder. In his journal Haushfer wanted to overthrow

Versailles and expand German boundaries. In a book he outlined the Retzalian ‘organic

theory’ of the state and used it to politicize against the treaty of Versailles.

“Germany must emerge out of the narrowness of the present living space into the

freedom of the world. We must approach this task well equipped in knowledge and training.

We must familiarize ourselves with the important spaces of settlement and migration on

earth. We must study the problem of boundaries, as one of the most important problems of

geopolitics. We ought to devote particular attention to national self-determination,

population pressure, living space and changes in rural and urban settlement and we must

clearly follow all shifts and transfers of power throughout the world” (Dorpalen, 1942 ).

Haushofer advocated that German politicians must study geopolitics: “a sound

knowledge of geography and history is just as important above all, our future leaders must

be schooled in geopolitical analysis.” (Houshofer,1942). He discussed his ideas with Adolf

Hitler. Hitler founded Nazi party for the purpose of raising Germany to the world power

status. In his ‘Mein Kemph’ he introduced the ‘myth of race’ by projecting the Germans as

Aryans, the superior race. Hitler did not want to return to the 1914 border of Germany. He

described just like Haushofer for an “Eastern Orientation.” His program was to acquire

necessary soil for our German people, In East Europe, therefore, his eastern policy was

similar to that of Eastern Orientation of Haushofer. Hitler stated, “Neither western nor

eastern orientation must be the future goal of our foreign policy but an eastern policy in the

sense of acquiring the necessary soil for our German people” (Hitler 1942).

Haushofer supported Hitler and Nazis. Although he never became the member of

Nazi party, but he promoted their agenda by writing a book entitled National Socialist

Throughout in World Politics where he described the ascent of Nazis to power and

denounced Jews. Haushofer also helped to facilitate the German–Japan cooperation that

eventually resulted in anti-comintern pact of 1936. In 1936, Nazi–Soviet pact also reflected

Haushofer’s geopolitical thinking.

After the fall of Berlin Haushofer tried to legitimise his geopolitical ideas and wrote

Defense of German Geopolitics. He emphasized through his writings that what he has been

doing and promoting all things were also being done by British and American geo-

politicians.

After WWII, new geopolitical equations were taking shape and a new geopolitical

chessboard was ready for the new players. The U S and the USSR was ready to play a long

game. The old imperial geopolitics gave way to newly emerging Cold war geopolitics.

The Cold War Geopolitics

Cold War began just after WWII on the question of rolling back of Soviet Union from

Eastern Europe and division of Germany between the USSR and USA allies. After WWII

only USA and USSR remained most powerful nations in the world. Former powers as

Britain, France, Italy, Germany and Japan were either destroyed or became very weak in the

War. USA emerged as the most powerful country as it was not directly affected by war

while the USSR was affected directly and faced huge destruction.

Although western experts accused the USSR for beginning Cold War by breaking

the Yalta agreement of 1945. But this was not a one-sided phenomenon. It was largely a

phenomenon which initiated by both sides. The USSR wanted to ensure his security in post-

War situation from European side. Therefore, he made its position strong in Eastern Europe

and penetrated her armies up to the Eastern Germany and divided Germany in two parts.

The USSR also opposed any type of armament of western Germany which was proposed by

USA and its allies to counter USSR and communist threat. The USSR was not taking any

interest everywhere in Eastern Europe and especially in Germany. On the other side, USA

and its Western European allies were not happy with the USSR and its policies about

Eastern Europe. They blamed the USSR for breaking the Yalta agreement and not to

holding free and fair elections as well as installing communist regime as subservient to

Moscow and keeping thousands of troops in Eastern Europe. They also took communism as

an ideological threat. Therefore, they felt that communism is a danger for liberal, free

market economy and their global military domination. Therefore, since 1946 when British

Prime Minister Winston Churchill put that Soviet rang down iron curtain to cut off Eastern

Europe up to 1989, when Berlin wall was removed, Cold War heated the world politics.

From Truman Doctrine (1923) to Mikhail Gorbachev’s New Political Thinking many

theories were put forward which gave different dimensions to international relations and

geopolitics.

In 1947, communist guerrillas started War in Greece against monarchy. Communists

were also trying to influence Turkey. At both places the USSR was clearly supporting the

communists. Ironically, USA and allies took this situation very seriously and decided to

oppose communists and supported anti-communist movements globally. To counter

communism in Turkey and Greece, the US President Truman demanded from his senate to

protect local regime of both Turkey and Greece. On March 12, 1947 he spoke before the US

congress and declares his policy of countering communism. Thus Truman doctrine was the

first significant public statement of an American president on Cold War geopolitics. Truman

accused the USSR for breaking Yalta agreement. He also said “The government of United

States has made frequent measures against coercion and intimidation in violation of Yalta

agreement” ( Truman, 1947).

Truman not only declared support to Turkey and Greece but also supported all anti-

communist regimes in the world. He described “It must be the policy of United States to

support free people who are resisting attempt of subjugation by armed minorities or by

outside pressures.” (Truman, 1947)

During the Turkey and the Greece crises, Truman declared his agenda in which he

emphasized that world could not remain neutral. The world should engage with US or against

US. He explained “At the present moment in the world history, nearly every nation must

choose between alternative ways of life. The choice is too often not a free one. One way of

life is distinguished by free institutions, representative government, and free election,

guarantee of individual liberty, freedom of speech and religion and freedom from political

oppression. The second way of life is based upon the will of a minority forcibly imposed upon

the majority. It relies upon terror and oppression, a controlled press and radio-fixed election

and suppression of personal freedom” (Truman, 1947).

It was the policy declaration of US against the communist state and ideology.

“Should we fail to aid Greece and Turkey in the faithful hour, the effect will be far reaching

to the west as well as to the east” (Truman, 1947).

Some statecraft intellectuals like George Kennan were critical of the crude and alarmist tone

of Truman because it contained rational calculation of means and ends for United States.

But George Kennan was cognizant of this danger, he wrote an essay The Source of Soviet

Conduct based on Truman doctrine. Initially it was published in Foreign Affairs with

pseudonym of “Mr. X”. This article became the intellectual foundation of the post-war

American foreign policy of “Containment of Soviet Union and Marxist ideology”. In his

article, Kennan explained the Soviet communism as an the ideology of maladjusted group

of fanatics who seized power in 1917. He wrote “The political personalities of Soviet power

as we know them today is the product of the ideology and circumstances ideology inherited

by present Soviet leaders and the movement in which they had there political origin”

(Kennan, 1947).

Kennan also argued that the Soviet leadership of that time was feeling perpetual

insecurity to destroy all competing powers both inside and outside of the country. Kennan

also debated that whole leadership of the USSR which was due to mistrust on the outside

world. “Whole training has taught them to mistrust and discount the glib persuasiveness of

the outside world. Like the white dog before the phonograph, they hear only master voice”

(Kennan, 1947).

Kennan put forward every point to counter communism globally. Further he pointed out “In

the light of the above, it will be clearly seen that the Soviet pressure against the free

institutions of the western world is some thing that can be contained by the adroit and

vigilant application to counter force at a series of constantly shifting geographical and

political point” (Kennan, 1947).

He also suggested to USA that policy of containment should be long term and based

on patience.“In these circumstances, it is clear that the main element of United States policy

towards Soviet Union must be that of a long-term patience but firm and vigilant

containment of Russian expansive tendencies” (Kennan, 1947).

Kennan rejected any partnership and friendship with erstwhile USSR. He cleared his

convection as. “It is clear that United State cannot expect in the foreseeable future to enjoy

political intimacy with the Soviet Union as a rival, not a partner in the political arena.”

(Kennan, 1947). Although containment policy was criticized by many intellectuals and

blamed containment for it looked like an endless, insurmountable war with no clear goal.

In spite of criticisms, impact of containment policy could be seen in USA policy

towards Russia. Help of Greece and Turkey was the first steps of America in this direction.

America wanted to help the whole of Europe for stability. There was no sign of stability and

reconstruction in Italy and France. In these countries communists were in stronger position

and it was observing that communists will capture these governments sooner or later. To

counter USSR and communist ideology in Europe, USA announced a big economic aid for

Europe. This plan was announced by USA foreign secretary Marshall on June 15, 1947 in

Harvard University.

In his speech Marshall said “Our policy is not against any state or any principle but it

is against the hunger, poverty, desperation and instability. Its aim should be to establish

stable economic system though for a short time. So that such political and social conditions

may come in to force in which independent institutions may live. Our help should not be in

parts, for disaster and emergency only. Whatever help our government renders it should be

to remove the disease and not temporarily. America will render it help to states only which

would be interested in their economic devotion. The states which produce only obstacles in

our way should not hope for our help. In my opinion, European states should initiate in this

regard. Our government’s job should be only to provide friendly help. We are ready to help

European states in making them chalk out plan of their development as far as possible.”

Thus, Marshall established four merits of help to other countries

It was for all European states in general.

It had no discrimination against communist countries.

European governments had to initiate first to get the help in the plan.

It was up to European countries to make plan successful.

America not only shattered the victory dream of Russia by being committed to help

to rebuild Europe but also to produce a strong pro-American bloc where Western Europe

gained economic stability and blocked the expansion of communism and the American help,

it got powerful friends also. The reaction of USSR on America’s plan of economic

development of Europe indicated that there were differences in Kremlin over that plan. At

first Soviet Union attended European conference which held on June 27, 1947, led by USSR

foreign minister Molotove for 2 days. Suddenly June 29, 1947, Moscow condemned the

British and France proposal related to Marshall Plan. The main point of condemnation was

America’s policies to bring the unity in European economies. The Soviet government feared

that America would increase its political influence in Europe by that plan. Molotov’s

objection to the plan was based on the point that America’s economic plan had no sanction

of any UN institutions. Therefore, he left the conference on July 2, and after one week

Czheck delegation also returned back.

Russian doubt about Marshall Plan which was not baseless also. As, it was recorded

that America’s top capitalists were taking deep interest in that plan. Those officers of

American administration who wanted to repeat the policy of 1919 had backing for these

capitalists. So these capitalist wanted to invest their money in industries and Europe

rebuilding. America also felt that the goal which could not be achieved through diplomacy ,

social or military action can be accomplish through the implementation of economic plans.

In Europe also , the Marshall Plan was considered not only as an obstacle in the expansion

of communism but also as a successful plan in making a powerful capitalist group which

could challenge the communist regimes of Eastern Europe. The Soviet representative

Vyshinsky said in UN “As is now clear, the Marshall Plan constitutes in essence merely a

variant of the Truman Doctrine adapted to the conditions of post-war Europe. In bringing

forward this plan, the United States apparently confined to the cooperation of governments

of the United Kingdom and France to confront the other European countries in need of relief

with the necessity of renouncing their inalienable right to dispose of their economic

resources and to plan their national economy in their own way. The United States also

counted on making all these countries directly dependent on the interests of American

monopolies, which are striving to avert the approaching depression by an accelerated export

of commodities and capital to Europe” (vyshinsky, 1947).

The biggest apprehensions of Soviet leaders were about the sitution in western

Germany as consequences of Marshall Plan as the existing condition of Western and

Eastern Europe could not be stable without the settlement of German problem. Vyshinsky

also expressed his concern that American aid could be used for Germany’s militarization.

Therefore, the fast reaction of Soviet Union was quit natural.

As the world was divided into two blocs, it was quite natural to observe the activities

of each other with great suspicion and doubts. The outcome of American policy was that

Soviet Union increased its control over Eastern European communist governments and

where every policy was dictated by Moscow.

One aspect of Marshall Plan was to counter the influence of the USSR in Europe

and, another was to plan a military strategy to counter the USSR militarily. For this purpose

Truman’s foreign secretary Dean G. Acheson forwarded dialogue on North Atlantic Treaty

Organization (NATO). On April 4, 1949 Western European countries and America signed a

security treaty with the same name. To create security organization, US indicated that they

were ready to counter communism in every dimension. It was mentioned in this treaty that

if any of NATO country is attacked, it will be considered as attack on all NATO members,

and its all members will defend it. After this treaty, cold war became more dangerous and

fierce because both sides got involved in power politics and struggle. The USSR was more

sensitive toward this treaty because it was a direct challenge and threat to USSR security

also. Therefore, USSR focused on two things to make its position strong. Firstly, USSR

supported communists in China for its capture and control on state. Secondly, it tested

atomic bombs and started new arm build up against the NATO as well as it, also went to

build up its own security system in Eastern Europe.

Besides Eastern Europe, Cold War was also extended in Asia. In 1953 Korea war

began because of communist regime and U S support to anti-communism movement in

Korea. In this War, USA fought directly in favour of anti-communism and USSR. China’s

new communist regime also supported socialist guerrillas. In this War, neither USA nor

USSR won clearly. Consequently, Korea was divided into two parts: Democratic Republic

of South Korea as a non-communist state, and North Korea as a communist ideological

state.

After Korean war, William Bullit (1947), a former US ambassador to Moscow, voiced the

fear of monolithic communism emanating from its Russian power source and engulfing

world via China and South East Asia, where situation of Vietnam was also alarming.

Vietnam was a French colony and after WWII France was not able to control it and was

losing the battle against communist freedom fighters. Therefore, in 1954, French Prime

Minister Piere Mendas declared, to get France out of Vietnam War. Both sides met at

Geneva and on July 21, 1954 they reached on an agreement to end the War. This agreement

is considered as the defeat of a strong ally of Capitalist country and a NATO member. The

United States was never happy with Geneva accord that got France out of Indo-China. So

the western bloc felt to surrender to communism.

US president Eisenhower used the phrase “falling domain” to signal his fear about

the fall of other south-eastern countries like Laos and Cambodia to communist bloc.

Ironically, USA interfered directly in Indo-China to fulfil his commitment to save world

from communism. US thought that she will face situation batter in Vietnam. But after 20

years of bitter experience, it had to leave Vietnam in 1973. History repeated itself when US

also signed a treaty in France to leave Vietnam. To counter communism, US also interfered

in Laos and Cambodia but could not get desirable results.

After Vietnam War it seemed that communism was enjoying its victory in East Asia

and successfully encountered USA in Eastern Europe. This détente situation was accepted

from both sides as both of them avoided direct conflicts against each other, although both

the blocs helped against each other indirectly in revolts and wars. When USSR interfered in

Czechoslovakia and other Eastern European countries militarily, USA condemned the

action of USSR but was not involved directly. In the same way when USA involved directly

in Korean and Indo-China Wars, USSR avoided direct confrontation.

In 1979, USSR invaded Afghanistan following “Brezhnev Doctrine” to save

communism in Afghanistan and make easy approach up to strategic Strait of Hormuz,

through which most of world oil supply passes. This action of USSR was condemned

harshly by West and Muslim world. USA president Jimmy Carter declared that, he “learned

more about the Soviet in one week” than the all previous years. USA also began arms build-

up and cancelled grain sale to the Soviet Union and pulled out American teams out of

1980’s Moscow Olympic Games.

After nearly one decade in 1989, USSR withdrew its troops from Afghanistan and

paid very high price with a loss of more than 15,000 troops and thousands wounded.

Gorbachev not only withdrew troops from Afghanistan but also introduced many political

and economical reforms like Perestroika and Glasnost. In his new political thinking,

Gorbachev called for disarmament, political and ideological freedom to all countries and

make integrated efforts to solve the most diverse problems of the mankind.

Gorbachev (1988) said “the fundamental principal of the new political look is very simple,

nuclear War cannot be a means of achieving political, economic or any other goal.”

Gorbachev also called for arm reduction to defusing tension between both blocks. He

criticized heavy military industrial complexes, and pointed out “this is what I think to begin

with each job in the military–industrial complexes cost two or three times more than one in

civilian industry” (Gorbachev, 1988). He invited USA to cooperate with USSR to work for

global human welfare, he argued, “the USSR and the USA could come up with large joint

programs, pooling our resources and our scientific and intellectual potential in order to

solve the most diverse problem for the benefit of humankind”.

He refused to intervene to save and support any communist regime against the will of

the people of those countries. In the same manner, he urged USA not to interfere in internal

matters of any other country. He announced the freedom of choice of every state.

“A nation may choose either capitalism or socialism. This is its sovereign right.

Nations cannot and should not pattern their life either after United State or Soviet Union”

(Gorbachev, 1988).Yet Gorbachev’s new thinking could not easily be demonized, especially

when, he backed up his words of concrete military policy. Gorbachev was concerted on

push for arm reduction and not arm control. His refusal to intervene to save the communist

dictatorship in Eastern Europe demonstrates how his firm commitment of global reforms

was. In historic autumn of 1989 exhibited the fall of Berlin wall marking the beginning of

end of the Cold War at last. The compound geopolitical consequences of his radical “new

political thinking” eventually provoked a counter reaction by communist hardliners within

the Soviet military–industrial Complexes. In August 1991 communist hardliners attempted

a failed military coup against Gorbachev which spiralled into the consequent and

dissolution of the USSR and fulfilled the condition of the emergence of the “New

Geopolitical Order.”

THE NEW GEOPOLITICAL ORDER

After Afghan War, the USSR not only lost the War but also its integration and status of

superpower as well. In 1989, Russian Communist party also lost the election during the

same year. This defeat in election not only swept away communism from Russia or Former

Soviet Union (FSU) but sparked the fire in all communist regimes. In Poland, communist

movement was defeated by anti-communist labour movement. In Hungary, after the split,

communist party was swept away by anti-communists in free election. Hot demonstrations

of masses in Russia, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia and Romania swept the power. Within one

year all Eastern European communist regimes were swept away. Only Albania communist

party struggled to maintain its status but that too was eradicated from power.

This phenomenon was not limited up to Eastern Europe only but it was felt globally where

ever communist were in power. Only Cuba’s Fidel Castro’s regime was remained an

exception.

The manner in which USSR collapsed was very surprising to the world because no

body ever predicted that the Union would be dismantled in such a way. Even top intellectual

and Cold War thinkers could not calculate this phenomenon. In 1988, the “Committee on

Present Danger” geo-politician Colin S. Gray started his book The Geopolitics of Super

Power with following conclusion:

“As far as into the future as can be claimed contemporarily relevant the Soviet

Union is going to remain the source of danger narrowly to American national security more

broadly (and quite literally) to the exercise of the values of Western civilization” (Gray,

1988).

After Gray’s conclusion within a year Berlin wall was removed by enthusiastic

Germans, while the revolution of 1989 overthrew of the communist regime in Eastern

Europe and started a chain reaction to dissolution of these regimes and ideologies.

After the fall of commitment ideology and political system, many experts, ideologue

and theorists came with their thoughts, ideologies and theories to define and to fulfil the

Post-Cold War geopolitical vacuum and situation.

Fukuyama (1989) claimed that we are now witnessing the end of history as a struggle

of ideas and principles “What we may be witnessing is not just the end of a Cold War, or

the passing of a particular period of post-Cold War history but the end of history as such,

that is the end point of man kind’s ideological evolution and the universalisation of western

liberal democracy as the final form of human government” (Fukuyama, 1989).

The defeat and dissolution of USSR was not a simply defeat or dissolution of a state , but it

was the defeat of whole communist ideology as well. After the defeat of communism, there

was no ideological rival before capitalism. To this situation, Fukuyama argued that Post-

Cold War is the scenario of ‘end of history’ because he considered that communism was the

last ideology to clash with capitalism in the history. Therefore, after the triumph of

capitalism, there was no challenge before capitalism as US former foreign secretary Henry

Kissinger argued “in the Post-Cold War world, there is no overriding ideological challenge”

(Fukuyama, 1989).

Although the claim of “end of history” was not new as it had already been declared

many a times, Fukuyama accepted it that “the notion of the end of history is not an original

one”. Before this Marx and Hegel also proclaimed the end of history. Marx believed that

material forces would come to an end with the achievement of communist ideological goal.

Hegel (1806) also declared end of history in 1806, as he saw in Napoleon’s defeat in the

battle of Jenna, as the victory of the idea of French revolution. Fukuyama pointed out that

reform movement in China and Russia as the victory of material over ideas and he

recognized that ideological incentives could not replace material in a “high productive

modern economy.” Fukuyama argued that there were two challenges before liberalism i.e.,

fascism and communism. Fascism was destroyed in WWII materially ideologically and

consciously also but communism went for another 40 long years and ultimately was

defeated by liberal market economy.

Fukuyama considered Japan as a winner of Cold War, because it emerged as a geo-

economic power by 1990. Many other experts also claimed that Japan would eventually

overtake the US and become number one economy. Although Japan was not involved in the

Cold War directly, but as far as the policies and economy of Japan are concerned it was a

big ally of anti-communist Western bloc. Therefore, Fukuyama’s declaration of Japan as a

winner of Cold War is a symbolic one.

Fukuyama also argued ambivalently that, the so-called end of history does not mean

there will be no clash at any level. He forwarded that there will be clashes at the level of

religion and nationalism, not at the level of ideas. He explained “There would still be a high

and perhaps rising level of ethnic and nationalistic violence since those are impulses are not

completely played out in post historical world. This implies that terrorism and War of

national liberation will continue to be an important item of national agenda”. Fukuyama

wrote that, common marketization and liberal economic interest would also be the agenda

for clash and conflict between states, and the death of ideology means that there would be

the growing “common marketization” and these would be a likelihood of long-scale conflict

between the states.

Some thinkers argued that, the end of Cold War not only reduced the ultimate range

of idea but steadily reduced the importance of military power in world affairs. Methods of

commerce have also displaced military power and the only logic of commerce is the growth

in world affairs. During the Cold War geopolitical order, the fundamental base of alliances

was the ideology of idea or military, but in new geopolitical order, it has been turned

towards the economic base. So after geopolitical age now we are living in geo-economic

era. Geo-economics has replaced the geopolitics as states are involved in geo-economic

game, and they are not only guiding but also protecting there multinational ventures for

playing their role in geo-economics. It mean that, states have been instrumentalized by

economic interest groups that seek to manipulate their activities on the international scene

for their own purpose often by requiring adversarial “geo-economic” stance.

The emergence of geo-economics does not mean that there was no existence of geo-

economics during Cold War geopolitical order. It is a reality that geo-economics has always

been an important aspect of international affairs. The rivalry between West and Soviet

Union was not only military or ideology based but was economic based also. Many a time’s

economic disputes between US and Western Europe and Japan and US have also occurred.

In the geo-economic era, there are less possibilities of military confrontation

between states due to political and military causes but on commercial issues. Edward

Luttwak (1990) explained this new geo-economics as “while the methods of mercantilism

could always be dominated by the methods of war in new ‘geo-economic’ era and it would

not only be the cause but also the instrument of conflict. If commercial quarrels do lead to

political clashes as they are now much more likely to do with the winning of the imperatives

of the geopolitics, those political clashes must be fought out with the weapons of commerce.

The more of less disguised restriction of export, the funding of competitive technology

project, the support of selected forms of education, the provision of competitive

infrastructure, and more”. Individual countries and different regional organizations or blocs

are focusing more on their economic agenda in comparison to that of their defense.

European Union, SAARC, and ASEAN are talking more about trade and commerce and

working with patience to avoid any military struggle. During Cold War, some countries

were isolated because of their low geo-strategic importance. But now these countries like

Myanmar, Switzerland and Central Asian countries and many other are more geo-

economically active.

The whole notion of geo-economics does not mean end of geopolitics also, but in

refers to the end of Cold War geopolitics. In new geopolitical order a geo-economics or

globalization of the economy is to play a much powerful role. Geopolitics and geo-economics

are also not opposite to each other.

After dismantling of the USSR, US emerged as a sole and undisputed superpower.

Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait provoked US to implement its “New World Order” Based on

economic interests.

American president Bush (senior) in 1991 addressed congress and asked immediate

help for Kuwait—not merely as a friend but to defend “civilized values around the world.”

In the same speech, he argued ambivalently the real agenda of this War. He mentioned

“maintain our economic strength of home.” America knew that if Iraq became successful to

maintain its control over Kuwait petroleum resources for a long time, it would not be in

favor of US petroleum supply from the Gulf. Bush explained, “Vital economic interest is at

risk as well. Iraq itself controls some 10 percent of the world’s proven oil reserves. Iraq plus

Kuwait control twice that”. Because US economy is largely dependent on Gulf oil supply

and if Saddam does not leave Kuwait, in future it would be more problematic. He reasoned

“our failure to do this thing has made us more dependent on foreign oil than ever before”

(Bush, 1991).

America asked the world for unity against the Iraq aggression but the main motive was to

go forward with the new agenda of establishing new world order “Out of these troubled

times, our fifth objective, a new world order, can emerge as new era.”

US president also rejected the world order of Cold War, “Today the new world is

struggling to be born, a world quite different from the one we have known” (Bush, 1991).

On one hand, US gave a threat to his enemies and , on another , he signalled other

countries to ally with him , in future US would come with. Therefore, Iraq War became

litmus test for America’s “New World Order” where USA position was that of a superior

and the sole world leader. “Our ability to function effectively as a great power abroad

depends on how we conduct ourselves at home. Our economy, our armed forces, our energy

dependency, and our cohesion all determine whether we can help our friends and stand up

to our foes” (Bush, 1991). The support of different countries was not only against the

Saddam’s aggression, but in fact it was for making a “New World Order.” “At this moment,

America come together with Arabs, Europeans, Asians and Africans independent of

principle and the dream of a new world order” (Bush,1991).

It was a great success of American foreign policy that made every country against

Iraq and used them for establishing New World Order.

Before War, America requested world’s nations to fall in line with her , but after

winning the War US did not appreciate the world community for victory. US leadership

also used self-cantered terminology as our investment, our leadership and our planning

“American leadership was instrumental in making that possible” ( Bush Sr. 1992). America

tried to keep herself in the centre of globe for the so called peaceful and just world. The US

also tried to justify aggressive policies as “ we also know why the hope of humanity turns to

us” ( Bush Sr.1992). America fought Gulf War to protect the economy and especially

energy and strategic interest in the Gulf and projected itself as a judge and sole arbitrator in

international affairs. Other motto of it was to capture the hydrocarbon resources of Iraq and

send a the clear-cut massage to the world community especially Middle Eastern Countries

not to compromise her energy interest. George Bush explained his real agenda behind the

Gulf War “Rather we seek an Iraq that uses its great resources not to destroy, not to serve

the ambitions of a tyrant, but to build a better life to itself and its neighbors” ( Bush

Sr.1992). After the War, US attained a position to directly dictate other nations and describe

her role in the future world as , “they knew we must make sure that the control of the

world’s oil resources does not fall into their hand only to finance further aggression” ( Bush

Sr. 1992).

By this War, America got an opportunity to established her supremacy and defuse

the ‘détente’ position and initiate new defense/offence program. Thus, US challenged non

allies both militarily and technologically . Bush said “Looking forward, I have directed that

the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) program be refocused on providing protection from

limited ballistic missile strikes—where there resource. Let us pursue an SDI program that

can deal with any future threat to the United States, to our forces overseas, and to our

friends and allies” (Bush Sr. 1992).

In this new global order, America projected herself the most resourceful and able

leader for unipolar world. George Bush defined his leadership agenda “among the nations of

the world only the United States of America has had both the moral standing and the means

to back it up” ( Bush Sr. 1992).

Whatever the American president is claimed, appeared like to recast the entire globe

on American model as proposed earlier by Winston Churchill in 1918 as well as Roosevelt

and Truman after WWII.

As after the WWII it appeared that now there would be no challenge before Western

model sponsored by America, the same was mistaken after the Cold War also. But analysts

argue that America which is seeking to be the sole superpower actually is not in a better

position to execute her global agenda than it was during the Cold War. In that era Europe,

many regional blocs and countries were supporting US against USSR, but after Cold War

and dismantling of the USSR, these regional groups and countries including Europe became

unwilling to follow US line blindly. They not only opted their own ways but also clashed

with US on sharing the world resources and on different other issues like invasion of Iraq

and the ‘war against terrorism’. The United States is also facing economic competition of a

kind which was never experienced during Cold War.

Thus, many experts believed that US would not enjoy its status as a single super power for a

long time. The rise of other power centres such as European Union, China and possibly

India also is likely to pose challenge in the near future. The emergence of new and stable

power centres may create the situation of “back to the future.” Back to the future means that

the future structure of global order of international politics is following the course which it

did in the past, before the emergence of ideological contest between East and West or

before the emergence of bipolar system. In practice this “back to the future” will be a multi-

polar situation.

To counter new challengers and competitors, America tried to maintain the balance

of power in its favor. US also tried to preserve equilibrium in several regions in the world.

In Europe, US-inspired NATO being expanded towards Eastern Europe and inviting former

Soviet Republics to join hands. In Asia, India is being invited to counter China’s threat.

To execute and globalize this model, it was compulsory for U S to establish a new

economy model and find out new rivals to justify its military–industrial complex. Features

of this new strategy includes:

To maintain Western economic model, US made more active strides towards WTO,

War against Terrorism, and defining rogue states as new enemies equipped with

WMD.

To cantain the rogue states threat Pentagon’s efforts to justify military spending

after Cold War.

To protect huge defense establishment US military officials started projecting a new

kind of enemy within days of the USSR collapse.

To declare Iraq, Iran, Libya, Syria and North Korea as rogue states and War against

terror masters, Pentagon tried to produce new regional strategic concepts. For developing

new strategic concepts, American defense department structured a team, governed by

important defense officials. They formulated in particular a ‘new regional strategy’ and

identified an enemy in each region, Iraq, Iran, Syria in the Middle East, Libya in Africa and

North Korea in Asia Pacific, which were powerful enough to justify the retention of a huge

military establishment. By May 1990, Pentagon leaders reached on consensus to the

adoption of military posture and in June 1990, Bush gave his approval to this ‘new regional

strategy’.

Invasion of Kuwait by Saddam Hussein gave an opportunity to US to successfully

test its new ‘regional strategy’. This War not only established ‘new regional strategy’ but

also gave the opportunities to legitimise US new global geopolitical order and successfully

posed ‘rogue states’ as a threat to the western world. however rogue states theory was not

enough to protect America’s geopolitical and economical interests, because the so-called

‘rogue states’ were not adequately powerful to justify huge military–industrial complexes.

Another problem was that some traditional allies of US were not showing their interest in

‘rogue states’ theory, not only showing less interest but were willing to cooperate with some

of them. Russia and China were not supporting the US and were establishing their own

geopolitical codes.

To keep in mind , American intellectuals tried to promote different agenda which

could take them beyond the rogue-states theory and create new polarization, globally in

favor of the US.

Thus, US Intellectuals threw the card of “clash of civilizations.” In the name of

defending the West, some neo-conservatives, such as Huntington (1993), built the theory of

‘Clash of Civilizations.’ In his theory Huntington casted the whole post-Cold War world

order as a cultural War between different civilizational groups. Huntington explained that in

future there would be a great clash between West and the rest of the world and it would not

be simple geographical clash but would be between different civilization groups.

Huntington (1993) describes, “Great division among humankind and the dominating source

of conflicts will be culture. Nation states will remain the most powerful actors in world

affairs, but the principal conflict of global politics will occur between nations and groups of

different civilizations. The clash of civilization will dominate the global politics”

(Huntington, 1993).

Huntington identified eight existing civilizations worldwide: Western, Confucian,

Japanese, Islamic, Hindu, Slavic-orthodox, Latin American and African. Western

civilization has two major variants: European and North American.Huntington argued that

in future world order, nation states would be the most important actors in world affairs, but

civilizational factors will dominate the decisions.

According to Huntington, west is now at the apex of power in relation to other

civilizations. Now Western military power is unrivalled. Western world is strongly united

and clash among Western countries is unthinkable. West with Japan, controls all economic

institutions globally. In United Nations, maximum issues are stalled by a directorate of

West. Huntington concluded that in any clash of civilization between West and the rest of

world, West would dominate. Only those will lead the world who would be economic

superpowers. Western civilization with Japan is able to implement new world order only

because they are economic superpowers. By dint of their economic stability, they are

controlling world politically, economically and militarily. In post-Cold war geo-political

order if India and China are in focus of the world that is only for their economic growth.

Hence, that the West and Japan are on the top of the order both in term of economic

growth and military. The China and India are however, threatening their position for the last

10 years. Presently China is maintaining its GDP growth rate at more than 9 percent and

India at more than 7 percent, while the West is struggling to maintain its top position.

HYDROCARBON: THE TOOL OF NEW GEOPOLITICS

Economic growth depends on certain things and energy resources are one of them. Due to

industrial development all over the world especially China, India and other developing

nations, the demand of oil has been steadily increasing but the supply remained less

comparative than the demand (Barkindo, 2006).

Even some of the experts do not hesitate to say that now life depends on oil, “it is

difficult not to be fascinated even obsessed by oil and not only because our life is on it.” So

availability of hydrocarbons is drawing the “limits to growth.” In post-Cold War era, world

consumption of oil has become a scale of geo-economic growth and its undisrupted supply

is the guarantee of this growth (Schmitz and Kaim,2007).

Oil is newsmaker not only in the present era but it has been, since the last 70 years,

playing vital role in economic, political and military affairs. In both world wars, oil was also

one of the many components which played a decisive role in the battle field . During WWI,

Churchill as a first lord of admiralty decided to replace British Navy’s power demand from

welsh coal to imported oil. Consequently, British Navy gained decisive advantage over

German Navy (Engdahl, 2007). In the WWII, smooth oil supply to allied forces gave decisive

lead over axis nation’s army comprising of the armies of Germany, Japan and Italy.

Therefore, Hitler tried to capture Baku in Azerbaijan to fulfil his need for oil. Any time

whenever oil supply was disrupted, the breath of world was stuck. Oil embargo of 1973–

1974, the Iranian revolution in 1979–1980, gulf wars of 1991 and in 2003 and many

problems in Africa, and attacks on oil establishments in Saudi Arabia are some of the

examples as how the world is sensitive to take energy supply.

If oil supply is disrupted due to any reason it becomes the reason of increase in

prices of other commodities. Since 2000, a sharp increase in oil price from $18/barrel to $

70 per barrel in November 2001 shows the speed of price rise (Hatzopoulos,2006). So the

increase of $30/bl would have reduced global economic growth by almost 2 percent a year.

These supply and demand problems continue increasing because some new economies with

rapid growth are demanding more oil and gas for their industrial growth. Not only the

economies of big industrial nations depend on hydrocarbon but most of the world energy

demand is fulfilled from oil and gas and accounts for about 64 percent of the world’s total

energy requirement, where oil accounts for about 41 percent and natural gas accounts for

about 22 percent. As far as other sources of energy are concerned, coal fulfils about 24

percent of the requirement, nuclear energy 6 percent and renewable nonconventional energy

resources 7 percent of world requirement. So both demand and consumption are increasing

at a high rate. The demand has increased by about 95 percent during the last 30 years and is

expected to further rise by 60 percent over the next 20 years. Up to 1970, USA and Europe

were consuming more hydrocarbons as compared to the rest of the world. But after 1970,

Asia took the cake dramatically. During 1970–1994, Asia’s energy demand increased by

about 400 percent while oil demand increased by about 274 percent. The growth rate of

world’s oil demand during this period was only about 63 percent. Presently, Asian oil

demand is expected to increase from 30 million barrels per day (2005) to 130 million barrels

per day by 2020.

So the oil demand is increasing every day everywhere in the world and the hydrocarbon

reserves are exhausting..

World oil estimated petroleum reserves are 2.3 trillion barrels if sands and shale oil

are taken in account. Geographically Middle East share the biggest part in the world oil

reserves with 56 per cent while North America share 16 percent, Africa share 9 percent

Central and South America share 8 percent, Eurasia 7 per cent, Oceania 3 percent and

Europe contribute 1 per cent (EIA,2007). So the territorial segregation the between demand

and supply produce a global geopolitical controversies. Since the demand is from every

country i.e. developed, developing and under developing countries, but the supply is limited

and concentrated at some places only. Therefore, every nation, every civilization or regional

organization wants an easy approach and control over the hydrocarbon resources. Control

not only on production but on supply lines as well. That is why every nation/ organization is

playing own politics for the access and control over oil and gas resources. Diplomacy, wars,

treaties, threats and every maneuver is being used by every country for the control of the

hydrocarbons. Kuwait’s invasion by Iraq and American first war against Iraq were

motivated by oil interests (Philippe and Khatib,2003). Some experts named it as the first oil

war because oil was in center of invasion of Kuwait and American War was to protect it.

The Afghan War and second Iraq War was also the due to oil geopolitics. Russia’s blockage

of gas supply to Ukraine and Eastern Europe; Iran’s nuclear crisis and Venezuela’s rivalry

with US are the new cases of energy geopolitics. They are using oil and gas as means of

diplomacy and weapons against rival countries and organizations.

Therefore, hydrocarbon have became most important element of new geopolitical

order. The focus has been shifting towards producing regions. The new policies are taking

shape to handle these production sites. In these production regions some were very

traditional source and some are new and coming first time in the focus. Although these new

region were not new the discoveries, however, for different reasons initially their production

was not significant.

In Americas, USA, Mexico and Venezuela are traditional producers since early

twentieth century. USA is the biggest importer also; the production of Mexico has

decreased significantly, though Venezuela is the fourth largest oil producer in the world, but

it cannot fulfil huge and genuine demand of whole hemisphere. Its long distance from new

emerging Asian economies makes things further difficult. Only USA can be benefited from

the Venezuela’s location but anti-USA sentiment in Venezuela’s political arena is the

limitation ( Nance,2005). In the far East Asia, Indonesia was a net exporter of oil, but now

Indonesia also has to import oil because of its decreasing production and increasing demand

(BusinessWeek, 2005).

Only Persian Gulf is contributing significantly to world economies and will

hopefully do so in the future also. But anti-West sentiments and militant attacks on oil

establishments have threatened the supply security. Sub-Sahara, Central Aafrica and West

Africa with Nigeria can satiate only 12 percent of world oil appetite.

Russia is also potential producer and can contribute to feed world energy demand, but

it is playing its politics. Recent blockage of gas supply to Ukraine and Eastern Europe tells

the story itself.

In this scenario, only central Asia and Caspian region can make a difference in the

new energy geopolitical arena.

There are many contradictions to take the account of oil reserves, which are

estimated between 20 to 200 billion barrels. Some exports from USA suggested astonishing

facts that central Asia with Caspian basin reserves account for about 200 billion barrels. It

means that this region could be a potential rival of the Gulf region. In 1990 the IEA suggest

that the proven central Asian reserve with Caspian and Azerbaijan are nearly 40 billion

barrels while possible reserves are between 70 and 150 billion barrels.

In 1995, Azerbaijan was the largest producer of oil with a peak production of

1,83,000 barrels per day, Uzbekistan had second place with 1,62,000 barrel per day. At that

time Kazakhstan was producing only 1,28,000 barrels per day. Wood Makenzie estimated

total production of oil from the region to be 8,00,000 barrels per day in 1995; and predicted

an increase in the production to a level of 3.1 million barrels per day by 2020.

In Central Asia, only Kazakhstan has significant proven and potential oil reserve.

According to EIA reports, Kazakhstan’s proven oil reserves are 22 billion barrels and

potential reserve are more than100 billions barrels. This proven amount of oil reserves is

closest to other countries like Norway 22 billion barrels, Libya 23 billion barrels, United

States 22 billons barrels, and Nigeria with 21 billions barrels.

Natural gas as a clean fuel was regarded as a fuel of twenty-first century. Between

1980 and 2003 the share of natural gas in the world energy mix rose from 18 percent to 23

percent. The demand is increasing with the rate of 2.4 percent annually and up to 2020 the

share of natural gas would be about 25 percent in world energy mix. Distribution of natural

gas is more localised than oil; OPEC covers 50 percent of total world gas reserves, FSU

shares 32 percent where OECD has 10 percent of total world gas reserves. Russia is already

the largest supplier of gas to Europe; by 2030 it will meet out about 50 percent of European

needs.

In central Asia and Caspian region, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and

Azerbaijan are principal gas producers and have a huge potential of gas reserve. In FSU

about 46 percent of gas belongs to Central Asian countries.

Energy is one side of the coin, strategically important location of Central Asia is flip

side. In ‘new geopolitical order’, if any country or organization wants to remain as a single

sole superpower, it has to counter and manage successfully Russia, China and India. Central

Asia’s pivotal location can play crucial role. For US, the so-called depicted rogue states are

also located in the vicinity of Central Asia.

If China wants to emerge as a superpower in the twenty-first century, it has to keep

away US from Central Asia. Russia is also trying to maintain its position in world politics

and if USA makes its presence felt in or around Central Asian Region (CAR), naturally it

will affect Russia’s and China’s position in the world politics and economy.

However, the importance of Central Asia will not be like that as Mackinder described

as a struggle between sea power and land-based power. The new situation would be just like

a chessboard. The region has a unique geo-strategic position not only being geographically

located in Central part of Asia but also in the heart of Eurasia as well as at the confluence of

Islamic, Chinese, European and Russian heterogeneous civilizations. Analysts are also

analyzing its importance due to its proximity with the Middle East. Central Asia as an

extension of Middle East or Middle East as an extension of Central Asia will make things

even more important geopolitically as well as geo-strategically; as there are many similarities

between Middle East and Central Asia on political, cultural and religious grounds. Geography

of the region is also not a barrier between them.

The new US policy towards South Asia, included a chair of South Asia in state

department. In February 2006, US state department announced the expansion of its bureau

of South Asian affairs to include all five Central Asian countries and was named as the ‘The

Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs’. According to state department all five Central

Asian states have more natural ties with Afghanistan and rest of South Asia rather than

Russia and Europe. All these combinations highlight the tremendous geo-strategic

importance of the region. Another aspect is that it is not only USA who is trying to

penetrate and control the region but Russia and China are also competing with each other

for domination in the region. Therefore, it is its strategic location between Europe and the

other part of Asia which makes this region more important than any other region of the

world.

After balkanization of the USSR, a geopolitical vacuum was created in Central Asia

which in effect had constituted a critical buffer zone between Russia, China and the Islamic

World especially Middle East. So every powerful country is trying to fill this vacuum in order

to dominate this buffer zone. The U S and its allies are in race since the beginning to fill this

gap. Because, to counter China and Russia, Central Asia would a be key location. So

involvements of all big powers equipped with nuclear weapons make the game both

interesting and dangerous.

After the Mackinder’s theory the importance of Central Asia as a Eurasian Heartland

remained unchanged. Although the argument of logic has changed, but the logic is same.

Who controls the Heartland will control Eurasia

And who controls the Eurasia will control the World Island

So it would simply not be the ‘Heartland’ in the future geopolitical chessboard, it would

be the “Heart and Brain land.”

AFGHAN WAR AND NEW GEOPOLITICAL ORDER

Though hydrocarbon resources are one of the most important components of new

geopolitics but this is not the only factor for the domination of superpowers in Central Asia.

What was also important to US and allies was globally growing political Islam. In Central

Asian countries after their independence many Muslim political groups emerged rapidly to

establish global Islamic Khilafat. Limiting Russia and China was already in American

agenda. Therefore, all these factors oil interest, religious politics and anti Russia and China

sentiments compounded at once in Central Asia.

US was working with different angles and agenda. Expending NATO up to Eastern

Europe and invitation to Russia to join NATO and make Central Asian countries a part of

“partnership of peace program” were the viable example of US Central Asian strategy.

Despite many efforts, USA had no direct penetration of its military in CAR and without

direct presence, it was a distant dream to achieve desirable results in the region. The other

problem was the Russian influence over the region and, it was not possible for Russia to

allow others in its backyard.

Physically, there are four routs to enter in Central Asia i.e. through China, through

Russia, through Iran and through Afghanistan. Penetrating through China, Iran and Russia

were not available to United States. Afghanistan was the only hope. But Afghanistan was

unstable and was engaged in civil war just after the withdrawal of USSR in 1989.

Afghanistan was also important for US because, US did not want to take cooperation of Iran

and Russia, rather wanted to avoid them. Afghanistan was also a land bride for CAC to

reduce their dependency on Russia in order to reaches the Arabian sea. America played very

important role in defeating USSR in Afghanistan, therefore, US became natural alternative

in Afghanistan. On account of some unknown reasons, US did not take interest in

Afghanistan after the withdrawal of USSR and Afghanistan was gripped by internal strife

and civil war. During 1989–1994, Afghan used different options for achieving solidarity,

but every option failed because of deep sectarian and ethnic division in Afghan society.

Taliban first engaged in 1994 and captured Kandahar and then swept north of the country to

capture Kabul in 1996.

Who were Taliban and how they were ruling Afghanistan? This is a topic of

different research and beyond the scope of the study. however they were ruling 90–95

percent of Afghanistan in 2001. Taliban government was recognized by three countries

only: Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and UAE. Pakistan was the proxy promoter and trainer of

Taliban.

Only Northern Alliance under the leadership of Masood was struggling against

Taliban in northern Afghanistan. Except Pakistan, neighbors did not like Taliban because of

their orthodox version of Islam and their export policy of this type of Islam to their

countries. Both Russia and China were worried because of Central Asian Islamic

movements’ relations with Taliban. They thought if any central Asian state comes under the

influence of Taliban-style Islam, it will have dominating effect in the whole region and,

consequently, will affect both China and Russia. Iran, one of the most important neighbors,

was also facing Taliban threat because of Sunni sect of Islam. Since Taliban were

antagonistic to Shiite regime of Iran.

US with a different position and policy had its eyes on central Asia’s and Caspian

oil and gas reserves. As Central Asian states are landlocked and there was no direct access

to sea for exporting oil in international market. Only Russian and Iranian pipeline network

could be used to export oil and gas.

Argentinean company Bridas was first Foreigner Company who took interest in

Central Asian republic of Turkmenistan in 1991. Bridas proposed a gas pipeline network

from Turkmenistan to Pakistan via Afghanistan. Despite Afghan civil War, Bridas chairmen

met Taliban’s leaders and all Warlords and opposition leaders as well. Bridas started

production in 1994 with a production of 16,800 barrels per day. Which was being exported

through old Russian pipeline network. Bridas was awarded a new gas field at Yashlar with

an estimated reserve of 27 trillion cubic fit of gas reserves. Therefore, Bridas wanted to

construct an alternative pipeline to Pakistan via Afghanistan. On March 16, 1995 Pakistan

and Turkmenistan signed a memorandum of understanding allowing Bridas to prepare a

feasibility study to this proposed pipeline.

Bridas purpose was to build a 875 mile long gas pipeline from Yashlar to Sui, where

Pakistani gas reserves are located and a pipeline network was already existing. For pipeline

security, it also signed many agreements with Afghanistan Warlords such as Ismail Khan in

Harat, Burhanuddin Rabbani and Masood in Kabul, Dostam in Mazar and with Taliban in

Kandhar. Finely in February 1996, Bridas signed a 3-year agreement with then Afghanistan

President Rabbani for the construction and operation of said pipeline.

In the same year, Bridas invited one of the US oil major UNOCAL, having long and

extensive experience in Asia especially in Pakistan. Bridas invited UNOCAL for

cooperation and sharing its experience. But it played a totally different game and expressed

its interest to construct another pipeline parallel to proposed pipeline. Turkmenistan

government also wanted the involvement of UNOCAL to give an edge to its Central Asian

politics. On October 21, 1995 Turkmenistan president unexpectedly signed an agreement

with UNOCAL to build a pipeline from Daulatabad gas field of Turkmenistan to Pakistan’s

Multan through Afghanistan. Central Asian Pipeline Project (CAOPP) envisaging a 1,050-

mile long oil pipeline to deliver one million barrels oil per day from Chardzhou of

Turkmenistan to Pakistani Arabian Sea coast. The basic aim of this project was to approach

entire CAR and Russian region and to allow Russian and Central Asian Energy producers to

access the growing market of Asia. To exploit more Central Asian and Caspian

hydrocarbon, reserves US oil majors formed a private foreign oil company group in

Washington. In 1996, US ambassador to Pakistan Tom Simmons urged Pakistani Prime

Minister Benazir Bhutto to give exclusive right of pipeline to UNOCAL, but Bhutto refused

to give any such rights. In May 1996, Uzbekistan, Pakistan and Afghanistan agreed that

Turkmenistan should form a consortium to build the said pipeline.

As the pipeline politics in whole region was taking place, Afghanistan was changing

fast. In September 1996, Taliban militia captured Kabul from Northern Alliance. Taliban

executed former president Najibullah. President Rabbani, defense minister and Ahmad Shah

Masood had to flee and took shelter in Punjsheer Valley in Northern Afghanistan.

After the dismantling of the Rabbani government, pipeline project situation changed

because all agreements and memoranda were signed with Rabbani government. And now

Taliban were the new rulers of Afghanistan and construction of pipeline was not possible

without Taliban’s support. Taliban were hardcore Islamists and had anti-West especially

anti-US sentiments. They did not like Russia and Iran also. However, UNOCAL adopted

pragmatic approach and expressed its support to Taliban and said that “it will make pipeline

project easier.” UNOCAL arranged US visit of Taliban official and tried to win more

acceptance for Taliban in US administration. Taliban also tried to make their rule legitimate

through UNOCAL. The emergence of Taliban posed a challenge to Russia and Iran

because, fundamentally and ideologically, they were anti-Iran and anti-Russia. They had

contacts with Central Asian Islamic movements which could challenge Central Asian

regional security system also. Therefore, to counter Taliban, Russia, CAS, Iran and later

China supported Northern alliance. Russia and Iran opposed any pipeline project through

Afghanistan because any new pipeline network naturally would devalue their pipeline

system. On the other hand, US saw an opportunity in UNOCAL project to counter Russian

hegemony on pipeline network and strengthen relation with CAS. Robin Raphel during her

two trips to Pakistan and Afghanistan in April and August 1996, spoke in favor of

UNOCAL projects. She said in a press conference on April 21, 1996, “we have an

American company which is interested in building a pipeline from Turkmenistan to

Pakistan through Afghanistan.” (Rashid, 2001).When Taliban captured Kabul, then within

hours, US state department announced that it would establish diplomatic relations, but they

did not recognize Taliban regime because of domestic pressure. UNOCAL also used same

tactics to secure the construction of pipeline segment of Afghanistan and tried to make

consensus among all Warlords about pipeline security. The spokesperson of UNOCAL said,

“it will give aid to Afghanistan warlords once they agree to form a council to supervise the

project (Rashid, 2001).

On the other side, Taliban also took this pipeline project as an opportunity to gain

international recognition. In November 1997, Taliban delegation toured America to meet

UNOCAL officials to discuss pipeline project. They also met state department official and

asked for US recognition. Taliban signed an agreement to setup a tri-party commission with

Pakistan and Turkmenistan to explore UNOCAL project. In October 1997, Cent Gas

Pipeline Limited was established in Ashgabat, in that UNOCAL was owning 46.5 percent

shares, Delta oil 15 percent, Turkmenistan national Gas Company 7 percent, Itochu oil 6.5

percent, Indonesia Petroleum [INPEX, Japan], 6.5 percent , Crescent Group Pakistan, 3.5

percent and Hyundai engineering took 5 percent of the shares of Cent gas project.

Although UNOCAL and US government was supporting Taliban regime for many

reasons, at home they were facing opposition from many human rights organizations

specially feminist group for imposing hard form of Sharia in Afghanistan. Share holders of

UNOCAL were also opposing this pipeline project.

On August 7, 1998, terrorists attacked on two American embassies in Kenya and

Tanzania and killed more than 225 people. America accused Al-Qaeda, a terrorist

organization headed by Saudi-born living in Afghanistan Osama Bin Laden. America

demanded Osama bin Laden from Taliban unconditionally. But Taliban refused American

demand and asked about evidences; Taliban also offered an international investigation about

Osama’s involvement. But US refused to provide any type of evidence and UN

investigation and demanded unconditional surrender. After 13 days of attacks on embassies,

US launched cruise missiles attack on Al-Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan. This attack

made the situation worse for pipeline project through Afghanistan. These attacks were also

a future policy declaration of US government with Taliban’s Afghanistan regime. This new

situation forced to pull out UNOCAL its staff from Afghanistan and Pakistan and

suspended the gas pipeline project via Afghanistan. UNOCAL also withdrew $2.9 billion

pipeline project to bring natural gas from Turkmenistan to Turkey. This withdrawal was a

shock for Turkmenistan pipeline freedom.

In place of Turkmenistan–Pakistan pipeline, Clinton administration proposed a new

pipeline from Azerbaijan’s Baku oil field to Turkey’s Ceyhan via Georgia’s Tibilishi BTC.

The governments of Pakistan and Turkmenistan are still hopeful that the said pipeline

project will be carried out. After the UNOCAL withdrawal from pipeline, Bridas hopes

came alive again. In January 1999, Turkmenistan foreign minister Shaikh Muradov visited

Pakistan and tried to convince Pakistan about the possibility of pipeline. In March1999,

Turkmenistan foreign minister met Taliban supreme leader Mullah Umer in Kandhar and

discussed about the pipeline. Thus, in April 1999 Pakistan, Turkmenistan and Afghanistan

signed on an agreement to review pipeline. To strengthen relations with Turkmenistan,

Taliban government also signed an agreement to buy gas and electricity from Turkmenistan.

On the other side the US with the support of Russia and Iran presented a resolution in

UN against the Taliban regime to impose economic Sanctions and the resolution 1267 was

passed to impose economic sanctions against Afghanistan. So on one hand US was working

with Russia and Iran, and on another hand US policy was to push the leaders to bring about

rebellion inside Taliban. In spite of all these efforts US was not in position to defeat

Taliban. Taliban were progressing and until 2001 Taliban had captured more than 90

percent of Afghanistan. Only Panjsher valley in north was the area remained in possession

under the northern alliance.

Taliban were also not co-operating with any body and were acting against world

community’s voice and advice. In February 2001, Taliban ordered to close down UN office

in Kabul and in March Taliban provoked international outrage by blowing up the giant

Buddha Statue of Bamyan.

On one hand America was working with Russia and Iran to curb Taliban on the

other hand it was making diplomatic efforts to pressurise Taliban to hand over Osama Bin

Laden. Talks between Taliban and US resumed just after the Bush Jr. came to power US. A

Taliban delegation toured Washington. During the negotiations US representatives told the

Taliban, “either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold or we will bury you under the

carpets of bomb.” It was clear indication of military action and launching War against

Taliban regime if Taliban refused to toe down the American demands. Talks broken off in

August 2001. After a final meeting between US envoy Christina Rocca and a Taliban

representative in Islamabad when Taliban refused to accept any US demand of pipeline

from Kazakhstan and refused to handover their guest who happened to be the US enemy

number one Osama bin Laden.

On September 11, 2001, World Trade Center and Pentagon were attacked resulting in

more than 3,000 civilian deaths. These attacks shocked the World and US because it was a

direct attack on US supremacy. Although American intelligence agencies were predicting

such type of attack but they were unable to point out “when and where.” Some non-American

agencies were also warning about terrorist attacks. America reacted harshly and accused Bin

Laden and his Al-Qaeda network as leading suspect and declared “we are in War.” Taliban

refused to handover Osama and demanded evidence against Osama. Taliban also offered an

international investigation, but USA refused any kind of investigation and demanded to

handover Osama unconditionally.

It was not any kind of War against US but only a terrorist attack but America declared

“we are in War” because only with this type of rhetoric, US could win NATO’s and world

community’s support. As US named Osama supported by Taliban, UAE and Saudi Arab

broke there diplomatic relation with Taliban. UN relief agencies were also pulled out from

Afghanistan. US divided world in ‘with us’ or ‘with them’ (terrorists). Taliban also lost the

support of their chief ally and promoter, Pakistan, due to pressure of US. Pakistan agreed to

support and cooperates with the US in War against Taliban regime. Pakistan also offered its

air bases and logistic support to US army. Not only NATO came with US, but many

countries offered their support including India.

Russia and China did not come with US directly but supported US and allies action.

Therefore, this event gave the golden opportunity to US to penetrate in Central Asia and CAS

also found a great opportunity to come nearer to US and establish close strategic relations

with the US. Central Asian largest populated and powerful country Uzbekistan eagerly

offered its air bases to US army. On October 7 (the day when US-led strike launched) US and

Uzbekistan issued a joint statement confirming an agreement in which US forces will be

based in Uzbekistan. During the attack on Afghanistan, more than 1,000 US troops were

already stationed in Uzbekistan and another 1,000 US troops were deputed in Khanabad air

base, which is located in southern Uzbekistan near Afghan border. Tajikistan offered air

corridor to US and also air field to counter Taliban forces in case of necessity. Tajikistan

offered its largest air base Kulyab which is close to the border of North Afghanistan.

Tajikistan also offered its two more air bases, one near Khojand in northern Tajikistan about

two hours air drive from Tashkent Uzbekistan and another Kurgan-Tibus in Northern

Tjikistan. Russian news agency ITER-TAS reported that the groups of US technical experts

had already arrived in Tajikistan to assess the condition of two unnamed air fields. The

Kulyab and other Tajik air bases were extensively used for air strikes against Taliban.

Turkmenistan, which shares 462 miles long border with Afghanistan, also offered its

facilities for shipment of humanitarian cargo but did not allow foreign troops to conduct

military action against Taliban.

Kyrgyzstan accepted the request of US to grant air corridor to its fighter planes

involved in operation against Afghanistan. Kyrgyzstan agreed to provide its strategically

important Manas air base near China border. US deputed 700 troops in Manas. Kazakhstan

also offered its all type of cooperation to US in this War. Kazakhstan offered its military

base, country transportation infrastructure and other facilities.

Thus, Afghan War not only changed the world geopolitics but most importantly

Central Asian geopolitics too. Before Afghan War, there was no serious presence of US in

Central Asia. But only between October 7 (the beginning of strikes) and December 7,2001

(removal of Taliban from Kabul) everything changed. In this period, US established its

military bases in Central Asian states, Pakistan and in the whole of Afghanistan itself. US

said that they have fought Afghan War to capture Osama bin Laden and to destroy Al-Qaeda

training camps in Afghanistan. However experts argue that this War was fought on the

pretexts to counter the terrorism but with a main objective to enter in Central Asia and

Caspian Sea region in only to control region’s hydrocarbon resources. Through this War, US

also succeeded to create new crescent around China, Russia and Iran. As per an analyst who

stated “by now it is quite clear ‘War on terror’ beginning with the attack on Afghanistan was

exploited by Washington to position its forces for the conquest of strategic region as spelt out

by the Project for the New American Century (PNAC)” (Singh,2005).