Celeste Moore 312070454 GOVT1105 Marty Kear Tuesday 2pm Major Essay 6) Does globalisation merely represent the

t the reterritorialisation of the world in the economic and security interests of America? Discuss by referring to the US as a geopolitical actor.

The role of the US as a geopolitical agent in the globalised world has often been likened to that of a new imperialist power (Mabee, 2004:1359), using the international community, however complicity, to assist in advancing its agenda. At the end of World War II, the world, especially previously German-occupied Europe, was in a deterritorialised state, without definitive operational powers or a government with legitimised use of force (Easterly and Freschi, 2010). Similarly, the breakdown of Soviet Russia lead to the mass formation of new states without a pre-existing government formula. In both of these cases, the role played by the United States led to the reterritorialisation of American values under the guise of a policy of globalisation and globality (Weaver, 2003:5). In the case of World War II, the role played by American geographers, especially Isaiah Bowman (Smith, 1986:442), in dividing the map led to the integration of neo-liberalist capitalism and US-style democracy in these countries. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States again reterritorialised their economic and security interests by assisting with the reformation of small, highly nationalised (Fazal and Griffiths, 2008:203) states. Deterritorialisation also occurs in the presence of weak or failed states, such as Afghanistan under the rule of the Taliban (Mallaby, 2002:2), and in these cases the US has, since the integration of the Right To Protect (R2P) principle in international law, intervened to facilitate with the rebuilding of

Celeste Moore 312070454 GOVT1105 Marty Kear Tuesday 2pm Major Essay such states. Therefore, in cases of deterritorialisation, the United States has assisted in the reterritorialisation of states, not just in terms of the economy and issues of security, but also in terms of democracy, policy and culture.

The division of previously German-occupied territory in Europe at the end of WWII was facilitated by US geographers, and thus represents US geopolitical interests. The Allies declared the German state to be incapable of civil governance (Solsten, 1995) and subsequently divided the city into four zones, one belonging to each of the Allied powers: USA, USSR, UK and France. Fearing the great cost extracted through reparations at the end of the First World War, most reparation costs were paid in the granting of control over territory, and this led to the displacement of up to 12 million East Germans (Solsten, 1995), further deterritorialising a state which had already lost the legitimate use of force. The French sought to create total economic and resource control over the area, and annexed the Saar region, creating a further set of divisionary borders. The USSR used their region as a form of reparation for territory lost during the war and sought to break down the borders in order to exert greater control over the whole of Germany (Solsten, 1995). The US focussed their powers on the democratisation of Germany, and this can be regarded as the first major democratising mission of the new American Imperialism. As democratic countries have freer borders and are more likely to engage in international trade while being much less prone to violent interactions (Weart, 1998:20) it is preferable to a global power

Celeste Moore 312070454 GOVT1105 Marty Kear Tuesday 2pm Major Essay such as the US that relies on largely peaceful and democratic globality in order to maintain both its desired world order and its power. In 1947 the British and American zones of Germany merged to create the Bizone, and in 1949 the French joined this to create the Trizone. Due to British debt and unwillingness of the French to engage in nation-building practices that would affect their use of German territorial resources, specifically steel and coal, the United States thus acquired majority power over Germany (Solsten, 1995). The US also played a crucial role in the creation, distribution and implementation of the Deutschmark and the facilitation of a united European market. Through taking control of a deterritorialised state and using its hegemonic power to reterritorialise the state in terms of its democratic, economic and security interests, the US has shown the way in which its imperialist power began in the nation-building of Germany after WWII and the control of Soviet powers during this time.

Secessionist movements in the breakdown of the USSR were utilised as deterritorialised spaces for the intervention and subsequent reterritorialisation by the United States. During the breakdown of the Soviet Union there were a vast number of secessionist movements brought to fruition in states which bordered the Russian heartland and had been swallowed up by the movements of the USSR. These movements largely took place in the Caucasus region, which has since become the precedent for other secessionist movements. Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia were forcibly brought into the Soviet Union in 1940 (Parks, 1990), and due to the large percentage of non-Russian ethnicity within these states they

Celeste Moore 312070454 GOVT1105 Marty Kear Tuesday 2pm Major Essay found independence though a series of secessionist movements beginning with Lithuania in 1990. The recognition of the international legal sovereignty of these states by the United States and, later, the European Union, was crucial to their establishment of legitimacy as sovereign nations (Bowen, 2001). By assisting with the development of international relations and economic security of these countries the United States secured a position of power and authority within the region of the Caspian and Baltic Seas, a foothold in the negotiations of an oil pipeline and shares in the resources of the region (OHara, 2004:144). The breaking down of the iron curtain in order to create smaller states with more permeable borders was considered a victory for the forces of a globalised world (Friedman, 2006:34), as it allowed for the movement of money, goods and people; actions prohibited under the rule of the USSR. This move towards globalisation of these countries also reterritorialised the security concerns of the United States, as developing a stronghold in these countries, as well as encouraging them to fight back against the iron curtain assisted with the containment theory utilised at the time (OHara, 2004:146). The need to sustain economic and security interests in the region can be seen as being dependant on Mackinders Heartland theory, for the Caucasus is indeed the centre of Eurasia. Having secured diplomatic missions in the region, as well as strengthening desire for a democratic, as opposed to communist, government, the US has thus utilised the breaking down of borders congruent with globalisation in order to create a region which is supportive of both its economic and security agendas.

Celeste Moore 312070454 GOVT1105 Marty Kear Tuesday 2pm Major Essay In the contemporary world, the most common instances of deterritorialised spaces are that of weak, fragile, or failed states, such as Afghanistan and Iraq. It is in these spaces that the US has spent much of the last decade attempting to reterritorialise its values and culture, as well as security agenda (Cooper, 2002). First and foremost, shoring up the military of states bordering the conflict zone in the Middle East has created a whole region backing its security concerns, whilst also assisting with domestic economic growth, as arms sales in the Middle East accounts for more than half of military sales (Berr, 2011). Of crucial economic concern for the US in the region is, of course, oil. Securing access to the oil reserves in both an economic and a peace issue, as where there is a lack of access to oil there is likely to be turmoil in the industrialised world which has the potential to become violent. The invasion of Afghanistan was purportedly due to the danger of sustained terrorist activities in the region and the danger of continuing to support a militia-led government, such as the Taliban, both serious security concerns for the US, especially in the wake of September 11. However, the invasion has been constructed by many as an attempt to forcibly gain control of the resources in the region. In the nation-building which followed the dismantling of the Taliban government, the US has utilised its powerful military presence in the region to import democracy, capitalism and American values (Jenkins, 2010). The valueladen goal of the invasion is evident even in its code name: Operation Enduring Freedom, and it is in this exportation of democratic values that the true nature of the future of US Imperialism becomes evident (Abrams et al, 1997).

Celeste Moore 312070454 GOVT1105 Marty Kear Tuesday 2pm Major Essay

The invasion of Iraq, in contrast, had much more to do with the implementation of US-sympathising institutions (Al-Suwaidi, 2004:13) than the dispersion of terrorist activity, although the associated security issues were still a major element of the mission. The legitimising power of the US for any attempted Iraqi government is crucial to the rebuilding of the state, and as long as the US stands opposed to an Islamic government, even a democratic one, the state will remain largely in chaos (Al-Suwaidi, 2004:8). The US opposition to a religious government highlights the importance of the exportation of values such as freedom of speech, freedom of education and the importance of human rights to the reterritorialising venture. It is interesting to note that, along with democracy and concern with non-typical military action, such as terrorism, the US-led force of globalisation has brought with it Western culture, such as soccer. The role of soccer as a globalising agent is crucial in terms of US legitimacy in Islamic states. Obsession with the game has allowed Muslim women to interact with the global world through international games, exposure to capitalist media and, above all, the idea of a culture which is not predicated on religion (Foer, 2004:229). Through the reterritorialisation of economic, resource and security interests, as well as the exportation of democracy, Western culture and American values, the role of the United States as a new Imperialist power in the Middle East is evident.

The power of a state or ideology comes in its ability to encourage other

Celeste Moore 312070454 GOVT1105 Marty Kear Tuesday 2pm Major Essay political actors to adhere to it. On this basis, the true power of the US as a reterritorialising agent comes not from the US itself, but from the actions of China in the deterritorialised failed states of Africa. China has utilised its vast military and economic advantages over weak, resource-rich African states in order to secure a percentage of the resources produced with the aid of Chinese engineers, builders and scientists (Michel, 2008:39) in a manner very similar to that of the US. In addition to this, the Chinese influences in these nations are encouraging an open and democratic process within the state in order to create stability, something which the Chinese domestic government does not promote internally (Michel, 2008:40). The Chinese have also utilised their military assets to exert control on the South China Sea, imitating the US and the Pacific Ocean during the Cold War (Friedman, 2008). This movement of assets pays heed to the theories of Mahan, who believed that sea power is the key to controlling the world. Whilst the Chinese are attempting to control the sea using American-influenced tactics and the US is attempting to control Eurasia, the reterritorialising power of the United States is evident, particularly in terms of security interests.

The reterritorialising agenda of the United States can be broken down into a desire to maintain a balanced world order. Without such an order, the particular power or agenda of any given country is irrelevant where there is no differentiation between failed and sustained states (Cooper, 2002). The need for this order accounts for the geopolitical influence of the US beyond deterritorialised states. Arguably the area in which the US exerts

Celeste Moore 312070454 GOVT1105 Marty Kear Tuesday 2pm Major Essay most reterritorialising influence is in the industrialised First World it is crucial to elements of security (Mabee, 2004:1372). By examining the historic and contemporary role of the United States in nation-building processes, such as Germany after World War II, the borders of the Russian Federation after the collapse of the USSR and Afghanistan and Iraq in the wake of terrorist insurgencies, the reterritorialisation of democratic principles and Western policy and culture is evident. Examining such situations, usually predicated on military intervention also highlights the role of American security concerns where situations of de-andreterritorialisation exist. Therefore, analysis of the United States as a new Imperialist power is not an unreasonable one in situations where its economic, security and democratic interests are concerned.

Celeste Moore 312070454 GOVT1105 Marty Kear Tuesday 2pm Major Essay Bibliography:

Abrams, E et al. 1997, Statement of Principles, Project For The New American Century, viewed 4/6/2012 <http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm> Al-Suwaidi, JS (ed) 2004, Iraq: Reconstruction and Future Role, The Emirates Centre For Strategic Studies and Research, United Arab Emirates. Author Unknown 2011, Reterritorialisation and EU Regions: Conflicting Logic?, Limology, viewed 7/6/2012 <https://criticalgeography.wordpress.com/2011/02/09/reterritorializa tion-and-euregions-conflicting-territorial-logics/> Author Unknown 2012, Deterritorialising and Reterritorialising Postcolonial Literary Instruction in Afghanistan and the United States, paper presented to the Computers and Writing Conference, Raleigh, North Carolina, 18 May. Berr, J 2011, How A Democratic Middle East is Bad For the US Economy, 24/7 Wall Street, viewed 17/5/2012 <http://247wallst.com/2011/03/02/how-a-democratic-middle-east-isbad-for-the-u-s-economy/> Bond, SH 2005, The Urge to Reterritorialise: A Global Consumer Response to Globalisation, paper presented to ANZMAC Conference: Marketing in International and Cross-Cultural Environments, Bond University. Boot, M 2001, The Case For American Empire, The Weekly Standard Magazine, vol. 7, no. 5, pp. unknown. Bowen, GL 2001, Minority Nationalities in Russia and the USSR, Political

Celeste Moore 312070454 GOVT1105 Marty Kear Tuesday 2pm Major Essay Science 111 and 216 at Mary Baldwin College, accessed 30/6/2012 <http://www.mbc.edu/faculty/gbowen/minoritiesRussia.htm> Braathen, E 2011, Brazil: Successful Country, Failed Cities?, NIBR International Blog, viewed on 1/6/2012 <http://blog.nibrinternational.no/#post30> Brummer, A 1998, Too Late to Bottle Globalisation Genie Turmoil in Asia and Russia, The Guardian, May 30, pp. 26. Clare, JD 2010, Germany During The Cold War, Greenfield History Site, accessed 30/6/2012 <http://www.johndclare.net/cold_war1_Germany.htm Cooper, R 2002, Why We Still Need Empires, The Observer, April 7, pp. unknown. Crossette B 2000, Globalisation Tops 3-Day UN Agenda For World Leaders, New York Times, September 3, pp. 1-3. Diamond, J 1999, Diamond, Guns, Germs and Steel, New York, NY: WW Norton and Co. Dodds, K 2007, A Very Short Introduction to Geopolitics, Oxford University Press, New York. Easterly, W and Freschi, L 2010, Top 5 Reasons Why Failed State Is A Failed Concept, Aidwatch, viewed on 1/6/2012 <http://aidwatchers.com/2010/01/top-5-reasons-why%E2%80%9Cfailed-state%E2%80%9D-is-a-failed-concept/> Eisenstat, S 1999, The US Perspective on Globalisation, The Overseas Development Council Annual General Meeting, Overseas Development Council, Washington DC, 9 April.

10

Celeste Moore 312070454 GOVT1105 Marty Kear Tuesday 2pm Major Essay Fazal, T and Griffiths, R 2008, A State Of Ones Own: The Rise Of Secession Since World War II, The Brown Journal of World Affairs, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 199-209. Ferguson, N 2001, Welcome the New Imperialism, The Guardian, October 31, pp. unknown. Flint, C 2002, Extra-territoriality, Reterritorialisation and Hegemonic Power: the Hegemonic Dilemma and its Implications for Globalisation, paper presented to Responding to Globalisation: Societies, Groups and Individuals Conference sponsored by the Globalisation and Democracy Research and Training Program, Boulder, Colorado, 4-7 April. Foer, F 2004, How Soccer Explains Islams Hope, in How Soccer Explains The World, Harper Collins: New York, NY, pp. 217-234. Foreign Policy, 2011, The Failed States Index 2011, Foreign Policy, viewed on 7/6/2012 <http://www.foreignpolicy.com/failedstates> Friedman, G 2008, The Geopolitics of China: A Great Power Enclosed, Stratfor. Friedman, G 2009, The Next Hundred Years: A Forecast in the 21st Century. New York, NY: Anchor. Friedman, TL 1999, DOScapital 2.0, Foreign Policy, no. 116, pp. 121-125. Friedman, TL 1999, DOScapital, Foreign Policy, no. 116, pp. 110-116. Friedman, TL 2006, The First Law of Petropolitics, Foreign Policy, no. 154, pp. 28-36. Fukuyama, F 2012, The Future Of History, Foreign Affairs, vol. 91, no. 1, pp. 53-61.

11

Celeste Moore 312070454 GOVT1105 Marty Kear Tuesday 2pm Major Essay Gowan, P 2002, A Calculus Of Power, New Left Review, vol. 16, pp. 4767. Gupta, A and Ferguson, J 1992, "Beyond 'Culture': Space, identity and the politics of difference", Cultural Anthropology vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 66-68. Guttal, S 2007, Globalisation, Development in Practice, vol. 17, no. 4/5, pp. 523-531. Harris, J 2004, The Band Play On: Rocknroll is the latest victim of corporate globalisation and it shows, The Guardian, May 8, pp. 19. Haynes, J 2003, Tracing Connections Between Comparative Politics and Globalisation, Third World Quarterly, vol. 24, no. 6, pp. 1029-1047. Hazbun, W 2004, Globalisation, Reterritorialsation and Political Economy in Tourism in the Middle East, Geopolitics, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 1-32. Hunter, R 2000, Globalisation, The US, Geopolitics and New Partnerships in the Twenty-First Century, The Sydney Papers, Winter, pp. 133-145. Jenkins, S 2010, As Democracy Unravels At Home, The West Thuggishly Exports It Elsewhere, The Guardian, viewed 17/5/2012 <http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/apr/08/democracyiraq-afghanistan-britain-us> Kalinovsky, A 2009, Afghanistan is the New Afghanistan, Foreign Policy, volume, issue and pages unknown. Kaplan, R 2010, The Geography of Chinese Power: How Far Can Beijing Reach On Land And Sea?, Foreign Affairs, vol. 89, no. 2, pp. 22-41. Kreisler, H 2004, Conversations With History: A Geographers Perspective on the New American Imperialism with David Harvey, Television Program, The Institute of International Studies, University of California, Berkeley, CA.

12

Celeste Moore 312070454 GOVT1105 Marty Kear Tuesday 2pm Major Essay Mabee, B 2004, Discourses of Empire: The US Empire, Globalisation and International Relations, World Quarterly, vol. 84, no. 8, pp. 1359-1378. Maier, CS 2002, An American Empire?, Harvard Magazine, NovemberDecember, pp. 28-31. Malik, AM 2008, Book Review: After War: The Political Economy of Exporting Democracy, Middle East Policy Council, viewed 17/5/2012 <http://mepc.org/journal/middle-east-policy-archives/after-warpolitical-economy-exporting-democracy> Mallaby, S 2002, The Reluctant Imperialism, Foreign Affairs, vol. 81, no. 2, pp. 2-7. Michel, S 2008, When China Met Africa, Foreign Policy, May/June, pp. 3841. Newman, D 2006, The Resiliance of Territorial Conflict in an Era of Globalisation, in M. Kahler and B Walter (eds), Territory and Conflict in an Era of Globalisation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Nguyen, M 2005, The Question Of Failed States, View on Asia Briefing Series, Uniya Jesuit Social Justice Centre. Nixon, S 2011, Globalisation Has Its Role In This Double Whammy, New York Times Online, August 10. OHara, S 2004, Great Game or Grubby Game? The Struggle for Control of the Caspian, Geopolitics, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 138-160. Parks, M 1990, Kremlin Tries to Block Lithuania: Secession: Soviet Premier Moves to Stop Rebellious Republic from Disengaging its Economy from the Nations, Los Angeles Times. Putzel, J 2005, Globalisation, Liberalisation, and Prospects for the State,

13

Celeste Moore 312070454 GOVT1105 Marty Kear Tuesday 2pm Major Essay International Political Science Review, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 5-16. Scrase, TJ 2003, Precarious Production: Globalisation and Artisan Labour in the Third World, Third World Quarterly, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 449-461. Simes, DK 2003, Americas Imperial Dilemma, Foreign Affairs, vol. 82, no. 6, pp. 91-102. Smith, N 1986, Bowmans New World and the Council on Foreign Relations, Geographical Review, vol. 76, no. 4, pp. 438-460. Solsten, E 1995, Postwar Occupation and Division, Germany: A Country Study. Washington: GPO for the Library of Congress, viewed on 30/6/2012 <http://countrystudies.us/germany/44.htm> Steinbruckner, BS 2011, Chapter 2: History of Germany 1945-1990, Library of Congress Area Handbooks, accessed 30/6/2012 <http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/detoc.html> Strange, S 1976, The Study of Transnational Relations, International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944-), vol. 52, no. 3, pp. 333-345. Strange, S 1992, States, Firms and Diplomacy, International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944-), vol. 68, no. 1, pp. 1-15. Strange, S 1995, The Defective State, Daedelus, vol. 124, no. 2, pp. 5574. Taylor, I 2005, Globalisation Studies and the Developing World: Making International Political Economy Truly Global, Third World Quarterly, vol. 26, no. 7, pp. 1025-1042. United States Embassy in Brussels 2012, Middle East: United States Policy Towards the Middle East A Dossier, viewed 17/5/2012

14

Celeste Moore 312070454 GOVT1105 Marty Kear Tuesday 2pm Major Essay <http://www.uspolicy.be/dossier/middle-east-united-states-policytoward-middle-east-dossier> Walker, E 1998, No Peace, No War in the Caucasus: Secessionist Conflicts in Chechnya, Abkhazia and Nagorno-Karabakh, occasional paper for Strengthening Democratic Institutions Project, Belfer Centre for Science and International Affairs, Cambridge, MA. Weaver, JC 2003, History, Globalisation, and Globality: Preliminary Thoughts, Institute on Globalisation and the Human Condition, Working Paper Series, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON.

15