by Kimberly Daniels
Kimberly Daniels, a member of our Emerging Fellows program wraps up her series of blog posts on Eurasia’s Heartland by taking a long view. The views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the APF or its other members. In 1904 British geographer, academic, and politician Halford John Mackinder theorized the likeliness of a world-power pivot to Eurasia’s Heartland, with Russia as the pivot state of power. Widely known for his “Heartland Theory,” Mackinder assumed that geographic positioning along with political influence, military capability, demography, and economic strength would establish a dominant regional authority. He suggested it would be that authority which would control the Heartland and rule the world. Several nations tried and failed to gain hold of the Heartland in the 20th Century. Following the Cold War and the dissolution of the former Soviet Union, the U.S. shaped a unipolar world order. Decades ago, it signaled the possibility of a major U.S. influence in the Heartland. However, her unwelcomed military involvement in the Middle East, escalating conflict with Iran, declining relationship with Turkey, and unwanted presence in Central Asia have brought about a different reality. Not only has the U.S. lost much of her influence in the region, but she has also watched Russia and China gain increasing sway in regional developments. Russia has advanced her geopolitical Heartland strategy by gaining influence in Eastern Europe, by becoming involved in South Caucasus affairs, and allying herself with China. By leveraging capitalistic globalization, driving the Belt and Road Initiative and related investments in Central Asia and beyond, and securing strategic partners in the Middle East, China has done likewise. Although the U.S. has maintained her status as the world’s superpower, she cannot deny the shift to a multipolar world order and the rise of China as a strong competitor, with Russia as a partner. As the U.S., Russia and China compete in a three-way tug-of-war to assert their respective influence in the Heartland, they find support or opposition from India, Iran, and Turkey. These three regional stakeholders have foreign-policy agendas consistent with a multipolar orientation in which they too could become centers of power. How they align their geopolitical aspirations with the U.S., Russia or China may determine the way in which power is distributed in the Heartland. How all Heartland stakeholders respond to or drive disruptive change — geo-economic commerce, geo-technological warfare, or geo-cultural identity — could open up a range of different future possibilities for Afro-Eurasia as a whole. Though uncertainties exist, the future of Eurasia’s Heartland could align with a collapse, new equilibrium or transformation scenario. Whether characterized by unipolarity or multipolarity, a territorial or a commercialized approach to Heartland power, the scenarios suggest two clear headlines from the future. One communicates a world power shift from the West to the Heartland in 2050. The other speaks to distributed power between the West and the East. All four headlines point to geopolitical implications primarily for the U.S., Russia and China, depending on how the future unfolds. Will world power pivot to Eurasia’s Heartland in 2050? Monitoring leading indicators of change — emerging issues, events and statistical data — could reduce uncertainty and signal the future the might emerge. Will the future align with Mackinder’s Heartland Theory? This is a question Heartland stakeholders and others may continue to ask and try to answer in the years to come. © Kimberly “Kay” Daniels 2020
Comments