CRITICAL EVALUATION OF “THE REVENGE OF GEOGRAPHY”
The article “The Revenge of Geography” by Kaplan (2009) is generally startling and provocative. This is because Kaplan uses a confrontational approach to reveal what lies ahead for countries and continents in the midst of shocking global upheavals. He effectively builds on the theories, insights, and discoveries of geographers to provide a comprehensive discussion on the evolving geographical and political scenes of the world. The author makes his discoveries captivating by tracing the history of major embattled lands, in the context of their proximities, topographies, and climates. Kaplan argues that global hotspots are related to the evolution of the global political scene, as also suggested by Dodds (2014). Kaplan convincingly demonstrates that it is dangerous to ignore geography by illustrating the impact of geographical systems on modern global politics. The arguments of the author are reliable because they are based on insights from several geopolitical thinkers, including Alfred Thayer Mahan, Halford Mackinder, Fernand Braudel, Nicholas Spykman, and Karl Haushofer.
The discussion in the article is wide in scope as it addresses geographic problems facing political systems across Asia, the Middle East, and Europe. Kaplan demonstrates his understanding of geographical determinism throughout the article. However, at some point, he backs down while discussing the impact of geographical determinism on the politics of the world. Notably, Kaplan demonstrates that human and physical geographies are connected, as also indicated by Agnew (2009). The problem is that the author fails to use a systematic theory to establish clear relationships between human and physical aspects of geography. It is notable that physical geography dominates Kaplan’s arguments. He is also keen to discuss economics, culture, and history in relation to global politics and physical geography. Kaplan correctly illustrates that all aspects of human geography have territorial components (Slater, 2008). Nonetheless, the author seems to assume that it is only the relationship between the human and territorial components that determines global events. Kaplan’s dedicated focus on geography can be attributed to his failure to recognize other factors, such as industrialization and globalization, which influence global events (Brodsgaard and Heurlin, 2002).
Kaplan’s interpretation of global conflicts is holistic. For instance, he applies lessons from current crises in the Arab Middle East, Europe, Iran, Turkey, China, and Russia to predict future global geopolitical relationships. The author’s illustrations in the article are remarkable as they indicate that the future of global political relationships is effectively understood on the basis of physical certainties, such as land allotment and temperature. The article plainly depicts the moral conflicts that surround major political systems of the world. For example, the moral conflict between China and the United States is evident in the article as the author attributes it to China’s move to seek metals, minerals, and energy from brutal regimes, such as Zimbabwe, Iran, and Burma. However, the credibility of the article is limited by the author’s claim that he is able to see the destiny of global political systems. For instance, the author asserts that he can see naval counterbalancing as the destiny of the United States and China. There are also some contradictions in the article. For example, the author changes his position when he argues that the destiny of the United States is to fix turbulence in Mexico.
Kaplan objectively indicates that he is conscious of the debate and criticisms surrounding geopolitics in the contexts of determinism and morality (Dodds, 2014). The author successfully maintains his deterministic view of geopolitics throughout the article. Nonetheless, he is evidently swayed by the assumption that global political power is determined by those who control Russia and Eurasian rim lands, such as China, India, Iran, and Turkey. Notably, he argues that the United States is the hegemonic power of the world due to its naval influence and control over Eurasian rim lands. However, the author fails to appreciate opposing arguments which maintain that the demographics, climate, mountains, plains, and seas of Eurasian rim lands are mainly expressions of their histories and not political power (Dodds, 2000). Therefore, most of Kaplan’s arguments are debatable.
Kaplan’s main arguments are logically presented in the article. However, his political positions sparked controversy related to the foreign policies of the world’s major political systems. For example, Kaplan promotes the realism of balance of power, which is in conflict with neoliberalism (Agnew, 2001). Kaplan’s view of realism is also controversial. For example, he views realism as the inevitable territorial conflict that will be experienced in the future. Kaplan’s view of realism is only based on lessons of the past. For this reason, he fails to reveal who will spark territorial conflict in the future and where fighting will be experienced. Kaplan’s contentious views are useful in motivating the understanding of global geopolitics among undergraduate students and general readers.
References
Agnew, J. (2001) The new global economy: time-space compression, geopolitics, and global uneven development. journal of world-systems research, 7(2), pp.133-154.
Agnew, J. (2009) Making the strange familiar: Geographical analogy in global geopolitics. Geographical Review, 99(3), pp.426-443.
Brodsgaard, K.E. and Heurlin, B. (2002) China's place in global geopolitics: international, regional and domestic challenges. Psychology Press.
Dodds, K. (2000) Geopolitics in a changing world. Addison-Wesley.
Dodds, K.J. (2014) Global geopolitics: A critical introduction. Routledge.
Kaplan, R.D. (2009) The Revenge of Geography. Foreign Policy.
Slater, D. (2008) Geopolitics and the post-colonial: rethinking North-South relations. John Wiley & Sons.
