CC BY
17
SCIENCE TIME
SUME CONSIDERATIONS OF CONCEPTUAL-THEORETICAL APPROACHES OF THE "GEOSTRATEGY" PHENOMENON
Cebotari Svetlana, State University of Moldova, Chisinau, Moldova
E-mail: svetlana.cebotari@mail.ru
Budurina-Goreacii Carolina, State University of Moldova, Chisinau, Moldova
Abstract. The concept of strategy in the usual vocabulary has become present, crossing a multitude of spheres of social, political, economic and organizational life, far exceeding the boundaries of a reserved use, including the military field. In contemporary language, the term „strategy" is no longer a quality confined to interaction between states at global level and, even more, to military interaction, but it is used to express the idea of organization, plan or planning. It can be used in the field of business or politics, at local, national or international level.
The present article aims to analyze the main conceptual-theoretical approaches of the geostrategy phenomenon.
Key words: strategy, politics, international relations, security, state.
The concept of strategy in the usual vocabulary has become present, crossing a multitude of spheres of social, political, economic and organizational life, far exceeding the boundaries of a reserved use, including the military field. In contemporary language, the term "strategy" is no longer a quality confined exclusively to interaction between states at global level, but is used to express the idea of organization, plan or planning. It can be used in the field of business or politics, at local, national or international level.
Thus, according to Webster's New Encyclopedic Dictionary, the strategy designates science and art to use political, economic, psychological, military forces [8, p. 1021]. In the Political Dictionary, the institutions of democracy and civic culture, S. Tamas considers that the term derived from military practice, but also is used in other fields, such as the politics, economy management, to name the mode of action, so as to achieve success in a competition in which two or more wishes are faced, each pursuing the same goal in conditions where all the parties involved cannot win [6, p. 240].
46
1 SCIENCE TIME 1
In this regard, the strategy is the science and art of using the political, economic, psychological and military forces of a state or group of states to provide maximum support in the successful assurance of policies adopted during peacetime or war. The term "military strategy", which involves the science and art of using the forces of a nation (economic, demographic), including the armed forces, is used in the specialized literature to achieve the goals set by the policy in order to effectively promote vital interests against to current or potential enemies. Any strategy involves a duel of wills between opponents who use force to resolve existing conflicts between them, each aiming to make the opponent accept the conditions he wants to impose.
Also, the strategy represents the means, whose purpose is defined by the policy field, an operation that highlights the forces that have the power. Thus, the political strategy represents the action plan elaborated to succeed in competition with the opposition forces on the way to obtaining the maximum possible support in the electoral campaigns or in another kind of political campaigns. At the strategic level, it refers to the following aspects: the mode of action, the goals and objectives to be achieved, the execution time, the means and resources that will use the main directions of action on the economic, technological, social, legislative level [6, p. 240]. Thus, according to the New Universal Dictionary of Romanian, the "strategy" is: 1) the most important part of the military art that deals with the preparation, planning and conduct of the war; 2) the military discipline that studies the great war operations, the preparation of the plans of the great battles [4, p. 1400].
At the general level, the strategy currently refers to the process of achieving the objectives by transforming military actions into political results. On the one hand, according to the supporters of K. Clausewitz, the strategy has been defined in numerous formulations as having the objective of concentrating the military power for a political purpose, being beyond these dimensions. By strategy, O. Gray understands the use of force to achieve the goals of government. Hence the second consequence in defining the strategy derives from its rational-linear nature. The strategy includes the process of setting objectives, developing concepts and calculating the risks and benefits of engaging available resources (existing or created) in actions aimed at establishing a more favorable environment. In the specialized literature it is given the tripartite definition of the strategy as a combination between final goals or objectives, as well as the ways to achieve these objectives, means or resource [2, p. 124-125]. Power strategies are plans that actors use to develop and gain power to reach their goals. Strategies also include the extent to which a state is willing to use its power capabilities.
The strategy, according to the opinion expressed by Zb. Brzezinski, is the management of geostrategic interests. Also, for Brzezinski, geostrategy is not equivalent to geopolitics. The concepts of geostrategy and geopolitics can be considered as a whole and as a part. The author argues that geostrategy is part of geopolitics.
Secondly, it would be good if the geostrategy was not limited to analyzing only the positions of conditions and possibilities of using military force in a certain space.
1 SCIENCE TIME 1
This is because in the post-war period a process of diversifying methods and forms of control over space is noticed. Thus, military force can be considered as an important factor, but not the only component of the geostrategy.
Third, the geostrategy assumes the long-term character of the planning and the action, conditioned by the quality of the space, which is the basis for the geostrategic concept elaboration. Also, the geostrategy assumes the activity of the state on the international arena in relation to certain units and spaces. Depending on the quality and the particularities of the space, the geostrategy can be classified / divided into terrestrial, maritime, aerial and cosmic. The impact of geostrategy can be global, macro-regional and on states. At the base of the strategy are aspects such as: choosing the territory as a space for expansion or extension; imposing under a certain form of control over the space (building military bases, annexations, imposing the sphere of influence, economic or cultural domination); determining the threats from the part of real and potential opponents or allies by creating alliances, unions, coalitions.
In this context, geostrategy can be considered as an important part of geopolitics, which characterizes the activity of the state on the international arena, directed towards the creation, maintenance and extension of power through the possession of a wider space. It is a purpose that can be achieved by both military and nonmilitary means. Geostrategy is the basis of the state's foreign policy which determines its direction and priorities in a given space.
A. Marincenko states that military strategy means the way, the purpose of training and the use of military force in combat. Generals and the admirals bear responsibility for the modalities, the methods of combat and the result of the use of the armed and maritime forces in combat. They are also responsible for the war preparation of the nations, the industry (including the military), and infrastructure (communication and connection paths). Thus, the aim of the war is determined by the political leadership peak. Military strategy and geostrategy become parts of politics; the last one being an element of geopolitics. According to A. Marincenco the geostrategy of the developed contemporary states is structured in three levels. The highest level of geostrategy refers to the national strategy, which includes lower levels of strategies in spheres and directions of nation development. It determines the goals of the nation's development, ensures the efficient use of spiritual and material resources, and directs the nation towards achieving the proposed goals. The second level of geostrategy is the national security strategy, often defined by "big strategy", "defense strategy" and "strategic doctrine". The national security strategy includes the strategies of those spheres and directions, which are necessary for national security for development purposes. Usually, the national security strategy is formulated in an official document - The concept of national security. The third level - the military strategy, coordinates the military problems of the national security - the development of the military industry, the provision of military forces with military technique, armament, means of communication, ammunitions. Usually, the military strategy is formulated in the military doctrine of the states. By involving both main objectives and secondary objectives, J.L. Thompson presents the strategy as a means of achieving
1 SCIENCE TIME 1
a goal [7]. G. Steiner in his work "Strategic Planning" includes several points regarding the strategy:
- The strategy refers to basic, directional decisions, goals and missions;
- The strategy is made up of the actions necessary to form those directions;
- The strategy answers the question: what are the goals we seek and how do we achieve them?
The strategy is used in various ways, but some are highlighted by H. Mintzberg, who listed five main uses of the word "strategy ":
1. A plan - in the sense of conscious, intended action, a mean of getting from here, that is, the distance between point A and point B, where A represents the starting point, and B - the destination point;
2. A tactic - as a specific maneuver aiming to outclass opponents or competitors;
3. A pattern - represented by a sequence of actions;
4. A position - as a localization tool, in a certain environment;
5. A perspective - in the sense of an integrated way of perceiving the world, vision and directives [5].
These patterns of decisions and actions define the emerging strategy or, according to Mintzberg - an „achieved strategy".
A key aspect of the strategy refers to the choice of the types of capabilities to be developed in order to maximize international influence. Strategies also include choices about how capabilities are used in various situations. These are sequences of actions built for maximum effect, alliance creation and the use of backup plans. Depending on the situation, most power strategies combine economic instruments (trade, aid, loans, investments, boycotts) with military ones (in the short term, these plans, within a situation are called tactics). Strategies also include the extent to which a state is willing to use its power capabilities.
Thus, in the specialized literature there are the following ways of realizing the strategies. According to C. Sorokin, in the literature there are three types of geostrategies:
1) Expansionists - which imply penetration in the near or far vicinity, often using force or threat with force;
2) Of surrender - which admit the physical restriction of the state territory;
3) Of positioning - oriented towards maintaining the status quo or the basic position [10, p. 72].
In the opinion of realists, the strategy is often associated with the neoconservative, supportive of exclusive national sovereignty and focused on the development of military capacity as the main device for organizing the balance of power against opponents. On the other hand, according to the liberal current, the strategy represents the institutional development of international cooperation mechanisms [3, p. 117-118]. Thus, the term „strategy" is far from being a static concept, being in a constant transformation as a result not only of the evolution of the war technologies, but rather of the degree of complexity of the societies.
1 SCIENCE TIME 1
All these variables also have an international dimension, which is reflected in the way the geopolitical actors, especially the states as great powers, see their role in world politics. Starting with the size of the territory, the geographical location and its resources - all variables acquire value in forming and realizing interests. Each state has its economic, demographic, military, technical-scientific and cultural potential. The geopolitical location of the state during the historical evolution dominated in the choice of the partners and the development of relations with its opponents. The conditions of the geographical space are considered as basic causes; whose presence implies a certain political orientation of the state. The close geographic-political space correlation, under the imperative of the principle of causality, allows, in the researchers' conception, the possibility of generalizations, the formulation of laws and principles of universal validity, which will help to the theoretical foundation of geopolitics.
In the researches dedicated to the analysis of space, F. Ratzel considers that space is not equivalent to the territory of a state and it does not have a physical-geographical acceptance. The space designates the natural boundaries between which the expansion of peoples occurs, the area they tend to occupy, considering that it comes naturally to them, modeling the existence of the peoples that inhabit it [1, p.74-75]. Also, in his research, F. Ratzel uses the term „geospace", by which he understands the extension of the civilizing force of a civilization at the level of a continent (the American geospace) [1, p. 76].
Another key notion used by F. Ratzel is that of position, a notion that is not strictly geographical, although it also has this dimension - strictly topographic, natural neighborhoods, having location in one or another hemisphere, relief shapes etc. The geographical location, according to Zb. Brzezinski, still remains the starting point in defining the external priorities of a state, and the size of the territory also remains one of the major criteria of stability of the state and power. But lately, for most states, the dominion of the territories loses importance. Leading elites have come to the conclusion that it is not the territory, but other factors that are most important in determining the international status of a country or its degree of influence on the international arena (economic development, technological innovations) can also be a key criterion of power. However, the geographical position tends to determine the immediate priorities of a state. The greater its political, economic and military power is, the more extended its immediate neighbors the sphere of vital geopolitical interests, influence and involvement of this state is [1].
Currently, geostrategy represents a current that aims to take into account the world as a whole, to create a global picture on world political issues. Geostrategy had more affinities with geopolitics than with political geography. Geostrategy has sought to be active, recommending policies and strategies that should be followed by the governments of states where there are geostrategic concerns.
American admiral Alfred Thayer Mahan (1840-1914) was the first representative of the geostrategy. He is the author of several works, of which the most known are "The influence of maritime power on history" (1890) and "The problem of
1 SCIENCE TIME 1
Asia" (1900), in which he sought to argue the need for control over the main colors of maritime navigation, to protect trade relations and to ensure the economic well-being of a particular state (understandable, first of all from the US point of view). Mahan sought to prove the existence of six fundamental factors, on which the maritime power would depend:
a. The geographical position - existing, for different states, of an exit to the sea or the Ocean (possibly to several seas or oceans), the degree of interconnection of the different maritime basins, the development of the continental borders considered vulnerable, the possibility of organizing strategic maritime bases, away from the national territory and to control, with their help, the great international trade routes.
b. The physical configuration of the coast of states: the existence of bays sheltered, estuaries, straits or peninsulas that can stimulate the development of life maritime, while their absence creates difficulties in the relations between the state and the sea. Here, the degree of interconnection of the marine life with the internal economic life is also taken into account, through the navigable rivers (which, however, are regarded as possible ways of entering by some invaders).
c. The extension of the coast and the natural conditions, favorable or unfavorable, for organizing its defense.
d. The human dimension of the state, which influences its capacity to constitute a commercial fleet and a powerful military navy.
e. National character - the commercial aptitudes of the population and its inclination towards the marine life.
f. The character of the government - the ability of the state governing bodies to highlight the conditions offered by nature and the skills of the population.
In the work The Problem of A sia, A. Thayer Mahan emphasizes the geostrategic role of domination over the core area of the Eurasian continent (giving priority importance to Russia) and that of domination over the seas surrounding the Eurasian continent (where he sees, first of all, the importance of the Sea British), highlighting Britain's efforts to dominate the southern and eastern margins of Eurasia (by establishing bases in Gibraltar, Malta, Cyprus, the Suez Canal, in Aden, Oman, India, Lanka, Burma, Singapore, northern Borneo, Hong Kong and the Shandong Peninsula) and to minimize Russia's efforts to exit the Indian Ocean (by controlling the Persian Gulf, Iran and the buffer state, Afghanistan). He predicted the stronger interference in this Asian policy of the United States and Japan, which actually occurred later (beginning with the period between the two world wars).
In the United Kingdom, the main representative of geostrategy was Halford J. Mackinder (1861-1947), of anthropogeographic formation. In the work The Geographic Pivot of History (1904), as Mahan, in the Problem of Asia, it was emphasized the continental geographical space, first of all - on the Eurasian core area (heartland), which would have the possibility to dominate the whole world, as from a continental fortress, surrounded by a buffer zone (rimland), in a permanent dispute, and then by the „World Ocean ".
51
1 SCIENCE TIME 1
In Mackinder's original conception, the key to world domination would lie in Eastern Europe, which can ensure the supremacy over the so-called "world islands" (Eurasia and Africa), while the "peripheral islands" (the Americas and Oceania) would be of secondary importance. In his later works from the interwar period and the World War II, Mackinder changed his mind, considering that the Eurasian core area could be counterbalanced by Western Europe and North America, which tend to form a community that is not separated but united by the North Atlantic Ocean (referred to as the „Median Ocean"). It is an idea that underpinned NATO's constitution.
To a large extent, Mackinder's ideas were retold, with minor tweaks, by Nicholas J. Spykman (1893-1943), an American of Dutch origin. According to him, the rimland would be the one who plays the key role in world politics and would be able to oppose the heartland.
Some contemporary geostrategists, such as the French Georges Chaliand and J.-P. Rageau (1982), conceive the world as a concentric circular structure, with several rings, which remind H. Mackinder's ideas, even if their influence of analysis on world systems is also visible: - the core of the central powers (the former Soviet Union and its political satellites), the maritime ring (corresponding to the rimland and surrounding the nucleus, starting from North Africa to Southeast Asia), the ring of maritime powers (North America, Western Europe and Japan), the ring of underdevelopment and poverty (Sub-Saharan Africa and most of Latin America, less the "South Cone") and the southern developed ring (Chile, Argentina, Uruguay, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand).
Both Mahan's and Mackinder's geostrategic ideas have attracted considerable criticism, as a result of over-simplification of history and excessive influence of determinism. This does not mean that they have not influenced the entire foreign policy and military strategy of Western countries and, first of all, the USA, from the period between the end of the eleventh century and the middle of the twentieth century. Thus, Mahan's ideas were largely followed by US foreign policy, especially during Theodor Roosevelt's presidency. It resulted in occupying the archipelago of Hawai in order to control the center of the Pacific Ocean; in assuring domination over a number of islands, former Spanish, from Antilles (Cuba, Puerto Rico); in supporting the separation of the Republic of Panama from Colombia in order to deal with the authorities of the new republic obtaining a strip between the Caribbean Sea and the Pacific Ocean, in which the Panama Canal was built, intended to control the connections between the Atlantic Ocean and the Pacific Ocean, as well as ensuring the possible joint action of the US fleets in the two oceans [11].
The most recent geostrategies include Alexandr Severskii (1894-1974), of Russian origin and refugee in the U.S. He emphasized the role of military aviation in a conflict and was the main advocate for US air supremacy, especially during World War II, and after the war. His concept the „decision area" of the world strategies would be, in fact, the Arctic, due to the smaller distance, over the North Pole, than on the West -East direction, between the regions of great strategic importance of the USA and those
1 SCIENCE TIME 1
of the former USSR. The ideas of Severskii were also taken as a strategy official in the US and Canada. It refers to states that have given special importance to the installation of a sophisticated, comprehensive defense system of the North, with numerous air bases, radar stations and so on.
Of contemporary geostrategies, we must mention firstly Saul B. Cohen (born 1928, in Massachussets), the author of a highly commented work - "Geography and Politics in a Divided World" (1963). According to S. Cohen, the whole world would be divided into five geostrategic regions, which would be none other than the spheres of influence of the United States, Ocean Europe, the former Soviet Union, China and India. These would interfere with areas of dispute, characterized by chronic political instability, such as the Middle East, Southeast Asia and Central and Eastern Europe, with frequent changes of political regimes and borders.
Saul Cohen's recommendations in the field of political-strategic orientations go in the direction of developing cooperation, of realistic acceptance of a geostrategic division of the world and not in that of conflict and military rivalry. In general, it can be seen that Cohen's ideas represent coordinates that have been followed, to a large extent, by world politics, especially the great powers of the last years, after 1989. The destabilization and fragmentation of Central-Eastern Europe, the emergence of numerous outbreaks of conflict in this disputed area, in the Caucasus and the Near East (in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, Kosovo-Metohia, Transnistria, Chechnya, Abkhazia, Mount Karabakh, Iraq, etc.) are evidence of the special political-geographical labors of the in this area, within which Romania has the chance to present itself as an island of stability and balance, the chance that it deserves to be much better used [11].
Thus, today's world is going through a very complex evolutionary stage, with a dynamic dominant component, but also with an inherited background that is expressed through a strong inertia. On the one hand, contemporary geostrategies emphasize increasing the importance of global economic exchanges, and reducing the role of strategic armament, however sophisticated it may be. It also determines the increasing role of superstate organisms (European Union) and states with a more dynamic economy (People's Republic of China, Japan, Germany, India), while decreasing the importance on the world chessboard of the states with a less dynamic economy, regardless of their political regime (Russia, Great Britain, France, all in turn, second-level powers), as well as increasing the interventionism of the world's first politico-economic and military power, the United States, which sometimes ignores the position of the United Nations.
At the same time, historical inertia continues to play a role worthy of consideration in the contemporary world [11]: The US continues to exercise its authority in the Latin American political-geographical space, where it often intervenes, directly or indirectly, when it considers that its authority is endangered (for example, in Panama, Grenada, Chile, Haiti, etc.), by openly supporting pro-American regimes; Russia seeks to maintain its authority over the space of the former Soviet Union by maintaining its strategic enclave in Kaliningrad (north of former East Prussia),
1 SCIENCE TIME 1
intervening more or less in Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Mountain Karabakh, Transnistria, Tajikistan and supporting pro-regime (from Belarus); France intervenes systematically in the various conflicts of the former French and Belgian colonies in Sub-Saharan Africa (Côte d'Ivoire, Chad, Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo) and supports the pro-Western factions of the Near East (especially in Lebanon); United Kingdom seeks to maintain its former positions in the South Atlantic (intervention in the Falkland Islands) and in the Persian Gulf area (co participation in US intervention in Iraq). All the above explains why today's last fragments of the former colonial empires are retained, 60 years after the end of World War II.
References:
1. Fràsineanu, D. Geopolitica. Edifia a II-a, revàzutà §i adàugità. Bucureçti: Funda^ia România de Mâine, 2007, 332 p.
2. Ghica, L., Zulean, M. Politica de securitate nationalà. Concepte, institutii, procese. Iasi: Polirom, 2007, p. 117-118.
3. Grecu, M., Tàranu, A. Trupele ruse în Republica Moldova. Chisinàu: Litera International, 2004, 872 p. '
4. Noul Dictionar universal al limbii române. Bucuresti: Litera International, 2006.
5 5 5 ~
5. Pîntea, I. Identitatea pericolelor existente §i probabile pentru interesele nationale de bazà ale Moldovei. Chiçinàu: Institutul de Politici Publice, 2001, p.33.
6. Tàmas, S. Geopolitica, o abordare prospectivà. Bucureçti: Noua Alternativà, 1995, p. 201.
7. Thompson J.L. Strategy in Action. London, New York: Chapman & Hall, 1995.
8. Webster's New Encyclopedic Dictionary. Germany: Koneman, 1994.
9. Разин Е. История военного искусства (VI-XVI в. н.э.). - Санкт-Петербург: Издательство «Полигон», 1999. - 656 c.
10. Сорокин К.Э. Геополитика современности и геостратегия России. - М.: РОССПЭН, 2009. - 170 с.
11. Электронный ресурс. - Режим доступа: http://www.scritub.com/geografie/ Geostrategia71954.php
54
