 | This article has multiple issues. Please helpimprove it or discuss these issues on thetalk page.(Learn how and when to remove these messages) (Learn how and when to remove this message)
|
.jpg) Halford John Mackinder, the author | |
| Author | Halford John Mackinder |
|---|---|
| Language | English |
Publication date | 1904 |
| Publication place | United Kingdom |
| Media type | Paper |
"The Geographical Pivot of History" is an article submitted byHalford John Mackinder in 1904 to theRoyal Geographical Society that advances hisheartland theory.[1][2][3] In this article, Mackinder extended the scope ofgeopolitical analysis to encompass the entire globe. He definedAfro-Eurasia as the "world island" and its "heartland" as the area east of theVolga, south of theArctic, west of theYangtze, and north of theHimalayas. Due to its strategic location and natural resources, Mackinder argued that whoever controlled the "heartland" could control the world.
According to Mackinder, Earth's land surface was divisible into:
TheHeartland lies at the centre of the World Island, stretching from theVolga to theYangtze and from theArctic to theHimalayas. Mackinder's Heartland was the area then ruled by theRussian Empire and after that by theSoviet Union, minus theKamchatka Peninsula region, which is located in the easternmost part of Russia, near theAleutian Islands and theKuril Islands.
Later, in 1919, Mackinder summarised his theory thus:
Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland;
who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island;
who rules the World-Island commands the world.
— Mackinder,Democratic Ideals and Reality, p. 106
Any power which controlled the World-Island would control well over 50% of the world's resources. The Heartland's size and central position made it the key to controlling the World-Island.
The vital question was how to secure control for the Heartland. This question may seem pointless, since in 1904 theRussian Empire had ruled most of the area from the Volga to EasternSiberia for centuries. But throughout the nineteenth century:
Mackinder held that effective political domination of the Heartland by a single power had been unattainable in the past because:
He outlined the following ways in which the Heartland might become a springboard for global domination in the twentieth century (Sempa, 2000):
The combined empires' large East Asian coastline would also provide the potential for it to become a major sea power. Mackinder's "Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland" does not cover this scenario, probably because the previous two scenarios were seen as the major risks of the nineteenth century and the early 1900s.
One of Mackinder's personal objectives was to warn Britain that its traditional reliance on sea power would become a weakness as improved land transport opened up the Heartland for invasion and/or industrialisation (Sempa, 2000).
A more modern development that may suggest that the Heartland theory still has some substance is the growth of Russia's oil exports through pipelines. Heartland theory implies that the world island is full of resources to be exploited.[4]
Signs of Mackinder's Heartland Theory can be found in "Crush zone" ofJames Fairgrieve,Rimland ofNicholas Spykman, "Shatterbelt" ofSaul Cohen and theIntermediate Region ofDimitri Kitsikis. There is a significant geographical overlap between the "Inner Crescent" of Mackinder, Crush zone, Rimland and Shatterbelt, as well as between the Heartland or "Pivot Area" and the Intermediate Region.
Kitsikis excludesGermany-Prussia and north-easternChina from the Intermediate Region. Mackinder, on the other hand, excludesNorth Africa,Eastern Europe and theMiddle East from the Heartland. The reason for this difference is that Mackinder's model is primarilygeo-strategic, while Kitsikis' model is geo-civilizational. However, the roles of both the Intermediate Region and the Heartland are regarded by their respective authors as being pivotal in the shaping of world history.
Max Ostrovsky discredited the existence of any permanent geographic pivot of history because climate is impermanent but his ultimate model echoes Mackinder: Who rules the largest temperate zone with the most optimum rainfall, rules the world.[5]
PresidentBarack Obama initiated "Pivot to Asia" meaning US strategic, diplomatic and economic focus on the region[citation needed]. Mackinder's term became a popular buzzword[citation needed] after Obama's Secretary of StateHillary Clinton authored "America's Pacific Century," inForeign Policy.[6] Former Chinese State Councilor,Dai Bingguo, suggested to Hillary Clinton: "Why don't you 'pivot out of here?'"[7]
K. S. Gadzhev, in his bookIntroduction to Geopolitics (Введение в геополитику,Vvedenie v geopolitiku), raises a series of objections to Mackinder's Heartland; to start with that the significance physiography is given there forpolitical strategy is a form ofgeographical determinism.[8]
Critics of the theory also argue that in modern day practice, the theory is outdated due to the evolution of technological warfare, as at the time of publication, Mackinder only considered land and sea powers. In modern day time there are possibilities of attacking a rival without the need for a direct invasion via aircraft, long-range missiles, or evencyber attacks.
According to Matt Rosenberg, Mackinder's theory was never fully proven[9] as no singular power in history has had control of all three of the regions at the same time. The closest this ever occurred was during theCrimean War (1853–1856) whereby Russia attempted to fight for control over crumbling parts of the Ottoman Empire, ultimately losing to the French and the British. Rosenberg does not name which three regions he means, nor explains how any power involved in the Crimean War came close to control of those three regions.
A. F. K. Organski was more focused in his criticism. Those who have ruled East Europe, he wrote, have not commanded the world. "Extremists like Mackinder have gone too far."[10]
