Political Geography Rubenstein Ch 8 At the simplest

Political Geography (Rubenstein, Ch. 8) At the simplest level, political geography is often thought about as the study of the location of the world’s political units n Hopefully by now, however, you agree that geographic literacy is about far more than simply memorizing places (like “countries”) on a map! n As this presentation attempts to demonstrate, the field of political geography is really much more concerned with issues of far deeper significance than simply asking “where is that country? ” n

Nevertheless… n By the end of this course, you should be able to locate most of the countries of the world on a blank map – At absolute minimum, you should be able to locate those on the current top 10 list of most populous countries, plus those that are projected to be in the top 10 by 2050 (see the list from the Week 2 Lecture material) • HINT: Be prepared for this on Exam #2! – In addition, any of the other countries highlighted as examples in any of the Lecture presentations used throughout this course are considered “fair game” – especially those that have been most commonly used

Take a few moments just to “refresh” your memory of the countries in the so-called “Western Hemisphere” – i. e. , the Americas

And now the rest of the world…

So how many “countries” are there? n Currently, there approximately 194 internationally recognized independent political states (i. e. , “countries”) in the world – However, notice the use of the word approximately! – The answer can actually vary largely because there can be disagreement about whether or not a state is considered “internationally recognized” – Also, there is the issue of whether or not a political unit is considered sovereign (i. e. , truly independent – has its own government that is free to make all decisions about what goes on within its territory)

Is there a difference between a nation and a state? Since we’re asking the question, there must be, right? n In common usage, the media and other sources often use the two terms interchangeably n However, in the field of political geography, there most certainly is a difference – and it’s important for understanding how many geopolitical issues can be viewed from a cultural geographer’s perspective n

So what’s the difference? n Nation = a group of people with a shared background, history, and identity – E. g. , French, Japanese, Kurds, etc. – The names of many nations of people are often the same as that used to identify their languages n State = a political unit with its own independent, internationally-recognized, governmental body and territorial boundaries – Because some states, like the USA, have “muddied the waters, ” so-to-speak, with our usage of the term “state” for its political subdivisions, we have generally come to use the term “country” to refer to individual state governments • However, some political geographers don’t like this, either, since “country” can have other meanings as well (i. e. , to refer to a rural area), but it’s probably the best term to use as a synonym in this case and so we will often use “country” and “state” in this synonymous way

Of course, the concept of “nation” is also confusing… n Many countries have used the term “nationality” (or “national origin”) to refer to anyone from a particular country (i. e. , state), regardless of whether or not that person was actually a member of the particular nation of people most commonly associated with that country – Did you catch all that? ! – For example, when immigrants entered the USA during the early 1900 s, it was common to just list the person’s country (i. e. , political state) of origin as their “nationality” (e. g. , Italy), even if the person might have actually identified with a different nation of people from within that country (e. g. , Sicilian) – Does that help?

The Kurds, for example, constitute a distinct nation of people who dominate portions of SE Turkey, Northern Iraq, and Western Iran

However, since there is not currently an independent political state of Kurdistand (or whatever it may be called), the Kurds are also considered an example of a “stateless nation”

Of course, since there are only 194 states/countries (give or take), but well over 6000 different languages (and therefore potentially that many “nations”), most nations are stateless Since the entire concept of defining political states was primarily a European practice that was instituted around the world during the era of colonialism, most indigenous (or native) peoples, such as the Cherokee, Navajo, Maya, and Inuit of North and Central America, are examples of stateless nations

But aren’t most nations synonymous with their states? n Actually, NO! Recall the point that was just made about the number of states vs. the potential number of “nations” (i. e. , roughly 200 vs. 6000+)…not exactly an even split, is it? – Also, think back to the maps of ethnic regions used in the previous chapter’s lecture – Did you notice how many ethnic groups were in those countries? n However, there a few countries whose population possesses a substantial degree of cultural homogeneity and unity – in other words they are actually states dominated by members of one nation – These countries are referred to as “nation-states” (since they possess both qualities) – There is no defined limit to determine a “nation-state, ” but generally if over 90% of a state’s population strongly identifies itself as members of a particular nation, then it can most likely be referred to as a decent example of one

The “nation-state” concept is generally more true of countries in Europe, since that’s where the whole idea essentially originated – i. e. , to create an official political state whose boundaries correspond with where a particular nation lives. This process came to be referred to as nationalism France is often used as an example of a nationstate, although it has rapidly growing African and Muslim ethnic immigrant groups, and is really more of a multiethnic state now Poland is probably a better example, since over 96% of its population identifies themselves as “Polish”

Outside of Europe, Japan is probably the most commonly cited example of a nation-state, and it may be the closest thing to a “true” one at that! 99% of its population identifies itself as being of “Japanese” nationality

Then what is a country if it’s not a nation -state? n Simply put, they are either: – Multiethnic states = a state that contains more than one ethnic group, or – Multinational states = a state that contains two or more ethnic groups that have essentially agreed to coexist by recognizing each other as distinct nations n Most countries do have a dominant national group (say one that comprises 50 -60% of its population), but they also have a handful (or more) of sizeable ethnic minorities – E. g. , ~54% of Brazil’s population is considered to be of the dominant “white” majority, 38. 5% are mulatto (mixed black & white), 6% are black, etc.

This map underscores the point that most countries are not nation-states – only 25 are truly classified as such

Of course the major “immigrant” countries, like the USA, Canada and Australia, were largely founded on multinational principles (at least in ideology) and retain this trait to this day – Most African states are also multinational (for reasons we will discuss in a little while) – Believe it or not, Spain is actually a multinational country • In fact, the Basque (one of its 4 principle nationalities —although they only represent 2% of the population) have mounted a strong separatist campaign, with the goal (at least of the most extreme) of creating an independent nation-state. • This is now commonly referred to as ethnonationalism, since it is an ethnic group seeking to create an independent nation-state

Now we can begin exploring some of the various ways in which all these “ethnic” and “national” identities manifest themselves around the world

Devolution & ethnonationalism in the former Soviet Union Russia is a prime example of devolution = the breaking down of a country along subnational or ethnic divisions n The most violent example of this was the mid-1990 s attempt by the small district of Chechnya, which still lingers n

The “Troubled” Transcaucasia Region: 3 former USSR republics of Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan (just south of Chechnya) are currently struggling with a variety of geopolitical conflicts – mostly all to do with the ethnic & national identity differences of the people in this region n Georgia, in particular, is only loosely holding onto Abkhazia and South Ossetia, where ethnic differences are at the root of the conflicts

In addition, Armenia and Azerbaijan have been in the midst of a dispute over a territory known as Nagorno-Karabakh since the 1990 s. The territory is an example of an exclave = a piece of territory separated from the main body of a country by the territory of another country.

During the 1990 s, Armenia seized control of Nagorno. Karabakh, as well as the territory in between. It is NOT fully internationally recognized part of Armenia – although they have been claiming it is for over a decade now. When states do this, it is called irredentism = attempt to annex territories administered by another state on the grounds of common ethnicity and/or prior historical possession (actual or alleged) Can you identify which two countries these are?

This map shows these ethnic conflicts in a broader regional context – by the way, notice the vast amount of ethnic diversity across this region, including in Iran

“The Pentagon’s New Map”: This is one “expert’s” (Thomas Barnett) perspective on how the ethnic and cultural divisions within the current multiethnic states of the Middle East might lead to new geography of state boundaries within the 21 st century. What do you think about this possible future political geography he “predicts”?

The potential for devolution in Europe

Ethnographic boundaries in the former Yugoslavia

The Geopolitical Legacy of Colonialism n In order to understand many of the cultural, political, and economic issues in the world today, it is helpful to first consider the patterns of the colonial world

One Example: The Geopolitical Legacy of “The Berlin Conference” Over a dozen European states met in Berlin in 1884 to divide Africa into their own colonial territories – without any real consideration of the cultural/ethnographic boundaries n The result was that political boundaries were superimposed over the ethnographic ones (Figure 7 -34 in the Rubenstein textbook shows exactly how different they are) n – When African colonial territories began gaining their independence after 1950, the entire region had already acquired a legacy of political fragmentation

The Evolution of Independent States in Africa n n n The cultural consequences of these superimposed boundaries were many: n Many groups were divided n Hostile groups were lumped together n Unified regions were ripped apart n Hinterlands were disrupted n Migration routes were closed off As the colonies were finally granted independence in the 1960 s & ’ 70 s, these became the boundaries for their new states n Thus, leaving most of them in a politically fragmented and dysfunctional situation Is it any wonder that African states have experienced years of political coups and civil war?

Another cruel legacy of colonialism is the antagonism that the colonizers often created as a result of their interaction with various groups n The most tragic recent example of this is the genocide (intentional killing of an ethnic or cultural group) that took place in Rwanda in 1994 n The Belgians gave preferential treatment to the Tutsi ethnic group (over the majority Hutus), sparking off decades of acts of ethnic cleansing back-and-forth between members from both sides Note: If you haven’t seen it yet, “Hotel Rwanda” is an outstanding movie about one man’s efforts to save hundreds of Tutsis. “Sometimes in April” is a less well-known, but equally powerful film told from the perspective of a Hutu caught between the two sides. (Both are from 2004)

Colonialism, not only created the foundation for multinational states, but also for “multicore” states in which multiple core areas compete for control, or there is simply a lack of a core area altogether – which obviously can lead to more problems Hausa-Fulani – Muslim dominated Yoruba - Main area of British colonial development and Christianity At independence, Nigeria was composed of three regions (based on regional tribal bases) Ibo - Densely settled rural traditional settlements

Add to this the competition between groups for Nigeria’s most abundant natural resource – oil (which is not evenly distributed, of course), and you have a recipe for political conflict and instability

One of the things Nigeria did to try to address this problem, was to move its capital from Lagos (which is now the largest city in Africa) to Abuja, which puts it in a more central (and “neutral”) location. Notice that Abuja essentially straddles the Islamic/Christian divide. This is an example of a “forward capital” – which signals a country’s intention to exert its political control over an area that was potentially contested or underdeveloped n As we saw in the Nigeria video last week, however, the expansion of the Islamic sharia laws in the northern region is causing centrifugal pressures in the country Lagos

Conflict in Sudan’s Darfur Region The conflict and violence between Muslims and Christians has been going on for several years n This has force many to abandon their homes (becoming IDPs) or even to flee to Chad or other countries as refugees n Unfortunately, the conflict seems to be getting worse and many now call it genocide n

Of course not all ethnonationalist movements manifest themselves in strong physical violence – take the Canadian Province of Quebec, for example The Quebecois movement of French Canadians to secede from Canada failed in 1995 by a vote of 51% to 49% margin (actually it was less than 2%) n What would be the geopolitical significance for the U. S. if we had another independent country along our border? n

Supranationalism – e. g. , the U. N.

• EU Members • Non-members • Prospective Members European Supranationalism

This leads us to an important concept for this unit (and course, in fact): Centrifugal vs. Centripetal forces If you’re familiar with these forces from a Physics course, then you’ll understand that… n Centrifugal forces are outward directed and therefore disrupt internal order and work to tear a country apart (like a strong ethnonationalist movement, for example) n Centripetal forces, on the other hand, are inward directed and promote unity, stability, and order n – Strong “national” pride and feelings, for example, can also serve as a centripetal force, assuming that members of all ethnic groups can be persuaded to accept the notion of being one, new nation (as in the case of the U. S. )

What are some other factors that work as either centrifugal or centripetal forces? n The type of state system/government – For example, many have consider the U. S. ’s “federal” model of a representative democracy as a centripetal force for the country because it shares significant powers with its smaller political units – this helps diffuse the feelings of the need for more selfautonomy in the first place – However, forcing a federal system in a place where strong ethnic divisions already exist may not always be the best solution either – as we are seeing in Iraq (more on the that later, too)

Another factor that has traditionally been considered by political geographers is a country’s “territorial morphology” n This is just a fancy way of saying “the shape of its political boundaries” – The location of the country’s capital in relation to its shape may also be considered n There are 5 basic types of territorial morphology – The “compact” shape (more circular) is considered ideal since it minimizes the distance between all of its citizens—promoting stability – The other 4 types can potentially be problematic (or promote disorder) since some areas may feel (or actually be) cut off from the political & economic system

What type of territorial morphology do you think each of these countries has? What do you know about the political stability of each of these countries? To what extent do you think territorial morphology has played a role in these situations?