I’ve never given much thought to the true definition of geopolitics. I’ve taken the name at face value and kind of put two and two together. I assumed it was little more than the political relationship between different countries, states, and territories. The way Dugin defines that term, isn’t far off from mine, it just goes deeper.
Dugin makes the claim that “Space in geopolitics plays the same role as time for history.” He says that it’s about the interactions and relations between spaces, peoples, cultures and economics. It doesn’t boil down to one central issue or theme, but it’s largely about the way that different territories perceive one another. He notes the value of having a “True North” and “True South”, because people can see themselves as further North or further South without any debate. There can be some heat or tension when referring to the locations of countries incorrectly, not unlike the way that people of Latin decent are often liable to get upset by mistaking them for originating from another South or Central American country. It’s about those little relationships between different cultures and how we’re all more or less different and the same.
What makes geopolitical relations so complex is that so few citizens of the world are truly good at negotiating and discussing in that field. You’d have to be extremely familiar with every culture on a grand scale to figure a way to achieve peace between all states and peoples of even one continent. Africa’s a great example, since we’ve spent a lot of time researching and discussing it these last few weeks. What’s good for some tribes isn’t necessarily good for others. One may think that every individual could look at a sustainable development goal pragmatically and say “Yes, good idea.” But then comes different politics and beliefs and religious restraints and arguments of how to execute it more practically in the eyes of one’s own deity rather than their neighboring civilization. It’s little indiscretions like that which cause tension between peoples and a lack of global solutions. South Sudan may be much better off if it’s communities had a greater understanding of one another so they could work toward peace quicker.
When I searched for additional information on Middle Eastern politics by way of TEDtalks, I couldn’t help but notice the way they were organized. The top 15 results were three comedy sets discussing politics of the region, two of which were by Maz Jobrani, five were Middle Eastern feminist speaker profiles, only three were serious discussions varying on topic but all themed around very sensitive issues, and then another profile, a playlist of 9 videos, and two profiles for white guys who discuss how to make peace. As a comedian, I was naturally drawn to Maz Jobrani.
Maz did a six-and-a-half minute set on the differences and similarities between the people of the Middle East. He went over the differences in the amount of kisses people of different cultures give when they greet one another, and the least threatening way to speak when they board an American airline, as not to arouse suspicion. The set wasn’t necessarily deep, but I couldn’t help but take note on how diverse his crowd was in Doha, Qatar. It was, in every sense, wholesome how all the different ways of life in the audience were willing to laugh at what they had in common as well as their differences. It was clear that Maz’s end goal with his speech wasn’t to solve issues on a geopolitical level, but to simply unite the spectators with jokes about how they all live. It was fun to watch them all connect like that, and there’s certainly something to be said for the way comedy brings people together. This blog post, however, is likely not the place because it would be twice as long if I got into it.
Kinzer makes connections between Iran and the U.S.’s similarities. Both have a strong value of democracy, as does Turkey, and they share many similar goals in terms of oil production and the desire to govern themselves without outside decree. They’ve shared similar enemies: The Soviet Union, Afghanistan’s Taliban, and Saddam’s Iraq. America has seen the end for all three of these global nemeses, thanks in part to Iran. Both countries would also like to see Iraq stabilize and be ruled by the peaceful majority, I.E. the Shia and to extinguish ISIL (this from belfercenter.org). From the way we govern, to our international goals, The U.S. and Iran many have more in common than either country is willing to believe.
Kinzer spends the majority of Chapter 1 going over a long relationship in the Middle East between Turkey, Persia, Great Britain, and the United States, and the Soviet Union. He goes over a lengthy story of Persia’s struggle for peace and democracy and how it was taken away from them just when things were looking up. The conflict being over, who woulda guessed? Oil, and Churchill’s perception of what-was-yet-to-be-Iran being of dire importance to the UK if it wanted to remain a world power. It took meddling between Great Britain and Russia take the peace that Persia had finally achieved and remove it for the sake of greed. It was upsetting to listen to.
The value that the story holds however, is one that you would think would ring like a bell in the hearts of Americans. It’s a tale of wanting more for one’s country, and for its people to be happy and content with what they call home. You’d think that more Americans would hear that and sympathize with the citizens of Persia, because we too were once held back by the colonial hand of the British. And it goes to show just how much we have in common with them. Our goals fall under the same category. It’s little more than backgrounds, traditions, and preferred executions that show our differences.
That’s the importance of history. When you look back at a nation’s past, you can find all sorts of common ground and shared interests to celebrate together. That’s the soil that you plant the seed of a new relationship in, and there’s nowhere to go from there but up, just as soon as one can make attempt to acknowledge each other’s differences, work with them, and come to a communitive understanding, rather than argue and only see dissimilarity. To make an attempt to learn the geopolitics of a region and work in tandem with them is the first step toward peace.
References:
Kinzer, S. (2011). Reset: Iran, Turkey, and Americas future. New York: St. Martins Griffin
Geopolitics: Theories, Concepts, Schools, and Debates. (2019, January 2). Retrieved February 24, 2020, from https://www.geopolitica.ru/en/article/geopolitics-theories-concepts-schools-and-debates
CaspianReport. (2019, January 22). Geopolitical analysis for 2019: Middle East. Retrieved February 24, 2020, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpbAHiWrwmc
Allison, G. (2016, March). US and Iranian interests: Converging or Conflicting? Retrieved February 24, 2020, from https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/us-and-iranian-interests-converging-or-conflicting
Jobrani, M. (2012, April). A Saudi, an Indian and an Iranian walk into a Qatari bar … Retrieved February 24, 2020, from https://www.ted.com/talks/maz_jobrani_a_saudi_an_indian_and_an_iranian_walk_into_a_qatari_bar
middle east. (n.d.). Retrieved February 24, 2020, from https://www.ted.com/search?q=middle+east
Blog 4810 