Nick Megoran and Sevara Sharapova (Eds) Central Asia in International
Relations: The Legacies of Halford Mackinder (London, Hurst and Company).
Pp.331. Hb. ISBN 978-1-84904-243-7
Over the past decade there has been a resurgence of interest in the life and
work of Halford Mackinder; including Gerry Kearn’s1 monograph Geopolitics and
Empire and Brian Blouet’s text Global Geostrategy: Mackinder and the Defence
of the West2, as well as a significant flow of papers in mainstream political and
geographical journals.
Central Asia in International Relations is a worthy
addition to this body of literature, effectively re-evaluating and re-interpreting
Mackinder from the perspective of an international group of geographers and
political scientists.
As a (if not the) key player in the institutionalization of geography as a
university subject, Mackinder has continued to feature prominently in historical
accounts of the development of the discipline. Mackinder’s strategic legacy is
also firmly established, with his Heartland thesis in particular representing a
keystone in the geopolitical tradition. With the premise that land-power (aided
by advancing communications infrastructure) would dominate world politics in
the twentieth century, Mackinder contended that central Eurasia represented the
strategic centre of the ‘World Island’3. Mackinder’s presentation of this theory
(1904) can be positioned as a rationalization for British foreign policy at the
time. In the first instance, policy implications were to prevent Russia allying
with Germany to command the Heartland — a message that was absorbed by
representatives of state at Versailles. In turn Mackinder’s theory came to
influence German geopolitics and Nazi expansionism (via Ratzel and Haushofer),
and proved to be a keen fit with US foreign policy after 1945 based on a
programme of containment directed towards the USSR4.
The end of Cold War saw Mackinder fall rapidly out of favour in policy circles; his
model no longer fitting the global strategic landscape. However, the September
11 attacks quickly re-established a critical concern with the political balance in
Eurasia; as has the emergence of a ‘new Great Game’ in the region, involving
the US, the EU, China and India, and centred on the control of resources in the
Central Asian states of Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and
Turkmenistan. As a consequence, Mackinder has been re-invoked, although
often without sufficient critical reflection. This constitutes the rationale of this
edited volume, which makes a solid and innovative contribution through charting
the re-emergence of the Heartland thesis in the context of these events, and
1
Kearns Geopolitics and Empire( Oxford, University Press 2009)
Blouet (Ed) Global Geostrategy: Mackinder and the Defence of the West. (Abingdon, Taylor and Francis 2005)
3
Livingstone The Geographical Tradition. (Oxford, Blackwell 1992) P. 195.
4
Taylor Political Geography: World-Economy, Nation-State and Locality. (Harlow, Longman 1989) P. 52.
2
asking whether or not Mackinder’s ideas continue to be of value in understanding
the international politics of Central Asia today (if, indeed, they ever have been).
In addressing this question, the book explicitly identifies and sets out to address
a trio of specified shortcomings in the literature on Mackinder. Firstly Megoran
and Sharapova take issue with a propensity among some Central Asianists to
glibly use Mackinder as justificatory shorthand for the enduring importance of
the region on the worldwide stage. As such, there is tendency to gloss over the
evolution of, and contradictions, within Mackinder’s arguments, including, for
example, his position on notions of environmental determinism and the role of
technological advancement. This leads on to a second criticism, which is the
inclination of many scholars to simplistically characterize Mackinder as an
apologist for imperialism. Such a generalization, it is maintained, does not hold
water and serves as a crass, underdeveloped depiction of both the man and the
environment he operated within. Thirdly, Megoran, Sharapova and colleagues
call attention to a substantial gap in our understanding of how Mackinder’s
ideas—akin to geopolitical ideas more generally— have ‘travelled’ between
different sites.
As a basis for exploring these issues the book is structured into three sections,
the first of which focuses on the complex relationship between Mackinder and
imperialism. This point is particularly well made in the chapters provided by
Blouet and Kearns, which trace out Mackinder’s early career as a journalist and
academic, his directorship of the LSE, his short-lived political career and his role
as British High Commissioner in Southern Russia. Demonstrating the evolution of
Mackinder’s ideas through these shifting circumstances, the picture painted of
the man is not one of an ‘unapologetic, right wing imperialist zealot’ as has often
been the case in past biographies (p. 50). Instead, Mackinder is portrayed as an
individual whose marked preference for democratic ideals and self-determination
among small nations was tempered by a realist perspective on global power
politics and the requirement to protect British subjects (and assets) from the
threat of Bolshevism. This pragmatic stance translates into inconsistency in
Mackinder’s writing, making it somewhat difficult to pigeon-hole his world-view,
or easily distil his collective output.
The second part considers the influence of Mackinder’s discourse on scholars and
policy makers at work in Central Asia in the post-USSR era. This arguably
represents the most innovative aspect of the book insofar as it is undertaken
from the standpoint of actors within the ‘Heartland’ - as opposed to the positions
adopted by those external forces looking to influence this space.
With
geopolitics being condemned by the Soviet Union on ideological grounds, the
popularity of Mackinders work in the Central Asian republics increased steadily
from the late 1980s onwards to the point where, states Nourzhanov, it ‘has
become the paradigm of choice in theorising international relations’ (p. 170).
This circumstance, it is collectively argued, is both understandable and
problematic. Exciting precisely because it was forbidden, Sharapova reasons
that the Heartland thesis quickly became especially important for satellite states
‘lacking experience of acting in the international arena [and] thirsty for
theoretical material that could make sense of the place of the region in world
affairs’ (p. 173). This analysis resonates with those provided by Nourzhanov
and Hauner; both of whom highlight the often patchy and superficial
engagement with Mackinder among a newer breed of Asian policy-makers.
For Hauner in particular, the tendency for Mackinder’s theories to find favour
with shifting geopolitical circumstances and historical events is testament to its
ambiguity as much as its foresight and this is echoed in the third section of the
volume. With contributions from Deiple, Dundich, Dadabayeva and Adibayeva,
and Heikimoglu, all of whom advocate caution in unproblematically transposing
Mackinder’s ideas onto contemporary Eurasian geopolitics, the most scathing
critique of this practise comes from the latter. In specific, Hekimoglu takes issue
not only with the act of stretching Mackinder’s ideas too far out of their original
context, but also with the central tenets of the original model. Chiefly, they
dispute Mackinder’s assessment of the agricultural potential of Russian Asia and
the propensity for current commentaries to exaggerate the comparative level of
oil and mineral reserves in the region. In conclusion, Hekimoglu notes that it is
with ‘sadness’ that people continue ‘to listen to those who are engaged in
building a mirage based on 2 prevalent dogmas: the Mackinderian one that
Central Asia has vast resources of great global significance, and the neo-liberal
one that economic liberalisation is a panacea to the problems of development
irrespective of geography’ (p. 288).
Bringing the debate full-circle, this contentious assertion brings balance to a text
which explores the influence and relevance of Mackinder to contemporary
geopolitical discourse, and one which provides a distinctly nuanced depiction of
the man and his influences. Perhaps the biggest shortcoming of the book is the
level of repetition between the chapters. This is most noticeable in respect to
biographical information and details of British foreign policy, but this is, perhaps,
to be expected of an edited volume focusing on a relatively specific subject
matter.
In sum, this is an essential text academics concerned with the
relevance of Mackinder today, and will also find an audience with a broader
readership interested in the emergence of the ‘New Great Game’ in Central Asia.
JESSE HELEY
Aberystwyth University
Email: eyh@aber.ac.uk