A Review of Geopolitical and Geoeconomic Dynamics

I hope there is no need to repeat the familiar saying that, just as individuals do not choose their parents, states do not choose their neighbors. To this, one might add the region itself—the broader geographical space comprising contiguous neighbors that have shared a common history, within which each state's interests have been shaped by the choices and experiences of its people and leadership.

The establishment of the State of Israel at the heart of the dividing line between the eastern and western parts of the Arab world gave rise to conflicts and wars that are still ongoing. Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait was not yet a reality at the time, nor had the border disputes among Arab states been fully settled. Certainly, the establishment of a so-called “caliphate” along the Syrian-Iraqi border was not even within the wildest imaginings of the terrorist organization ISIS.

More broadly, geography, understood as an expression of place, has attracted considerable human attention. Within the social sciences, it has given rise to important concepts concerned with relations of power among neighboring states, or among regions composed of neighboring states. This is what came to be known as geopolitics, in which tendencies toward hegemony and control are ever-present. When economic interests and mutual benefits become intertwined with these considerations, the concept evolves into geoeconomics.

Globalization, built upon planetary relations across the Earth, moved beyond both concepts toward another form of competition in which culture, identity, and religion also became involved. As the world grew smaller, it effectively became a form of “neighborhood” in which states and regions compete with one another. When it became apparent that such competition could lead to global wars involving the use of nuclear weapons, it prompted the maturation of international law, which itself has increasingly come under pressure from debates over both its form and substance.

The modern world sought, as is well known, to move beyond this dynamic through regional arrangements, with free trade serving as the starting point before cooperation expanded into other areas of exchange and coordination.

Europe took the lead in the aftermath of the Second World War, giving rise to the European Union. Asia followed in the wake of the Vietnam War and the conflicts in Southeast Asia, which contributed to the establishment of ASEAN. In North America, a regional framework emerged bringing together the United States, Canada, and Mexico. In South America, the Southern Common Market (MERCOSUR) was established, bringing together Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, and Paraguay.

All of these efforts sought to integrate political geography with economic geography, directing both toward cooperative arrangements designed to prevent war and promote peace.

Despite its military character, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) also transcended the boundaries of two regions, linking Europe and North America.

At the beginning of the second decade of the twenty-first century, however, this trend began to take a different course, as the world appeared to retreat toward renewed conflicts and wars.

The Russian-Ukrainian situation reflects a geographical and historical proximity between Russia and Ukraine that existed both during the era of the Russian tsars and under Bolshevik rule, and which continued to exert an important influence after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

A glance at the maps shows that Ukraine has long been situated within Russia's broader sphere of influence. This situation was compounded by Moscow's annexation of Crimea in 2014, following its incorporation into Ukraine in 1954 under Nikita Khrushchev, when it became part of the Soviet system. Ukraine was one of the three Soviet republics—alongside Russia and Belarus—that represented the Soviet Union in international organizations. It also played an important role in the Soviet Union's agricultural and industrial base and possessed a substantial share of Soviet military industries, particularly its nuclear capabilities.

The collapse of the Soviet Union in December 1991, and Russia's declaration of independence from the Soviet Union, created an opportunity for 14 other republics to become independent, including Ukraine. Yet this may also have marked the beginning of a broader process of fragmentation affecting a number of federations, such as Yugoslavia and Ethiopia, while sectarianism and ethnicity gained prominence as foundations for states that sought to participate in globalization in their own right rather than through larger political entities.

The Middle Eastern situation that followed the Arab Spring was shaped politically and strategically by two major developments.

The first was the realization that contradictions and conflicts within states could be more intense and more deadly than many regional conflicts. Civil wars spread across several countries, while in others tensions became so acute that they either required external intervention or led the armed forces to assume a direct role in political governance.

The second was the declining effectiveness of the state as a central actor in regional relations. Non-state actors emerged alongside states, including the terrorist organization the Muslim Brotherhood and affiliated militias, with geopolitical and geoeconomic dynamics increasingly subject to absolutist interpretations.

The developments underway therefore require further thought and deeper study.

Originally published by Asharq Al-Awsat.