Gertjan Dijkink

When Geopolitics and Religion Fuse: A Historical Perspective

This article provides a historic overview of the role of religion in international relations and discusses what the new pervasiveness of religion means from the perspective of critical geopolitics. Religion and geopolitics seem to have been caught in a zero-sum relationship. Religion helped to legitimate the world of states but receded when that world order developed its own logic (the Westphalian system). Where the (geopolitical) logic of the state system or security appears to fail, religion emerges as a source for the self-image of groups or the discourse on global relations. Religious visions in Christianity and Islam as holy land, holy war or millennialism (extensively discussed in this article) have a clear geopolitical character. They fit easily in the study of codes, script and narratives as practised in critical geopolitics. However in drawing general conclusions one should account for the completely different experiential world in which religiosity takes priority and for the independent causes of territorial conflict.

Geopolitical codes and popular representations

Geopolitical codes – intellectual tools for practising statecraft – share a certain basic understanding of the world with less articulate, popular representations. Both are influenced by national geographies and histories. The international power game may (particularly in large countries) temporarily alienate codes from popular representations but the ensuing conflicts also prove the solidity of popular visions about the world order. Change is nevertheless possible and should be one of the central themes of research in geopolitical representations. This article concludes with specifying five perspectives that can be adopted in cross-national research: time/space models of the world, national myths, territorial narratives, active/passive approach of international relations and reactions to international crises.

German, British and French geopolitics. The enduring differences

Geopolitical discourses for Germany, Britain and France are outlined for several periods since 1870. They are also categorised as to their orientations to different scales (regional, European, global). These discourses remain different over time. Differences are interpreted in terms of situation, state age and state organisation. At the same time these discourses change on the basis of state system characteristics and mutual interactions.

European capital cities as political frontiers

The capital is the centre of the established order but it always had to accept a relatively uncontrollable world of individuals redefining urban space in their own way or pioneering new means of support. As their existence is both a political nuisance and a foreshadowing of institutional changes (sometimes revolutionary) of nation-wide importance, I call such ways of life political frontiers. One may wonder what will become of political frontiers in the information society (or ‘postmodern’ society) that, apart from borderless, has been described as ‘society without a centre’ as well. Actually information society is the prototype of a frontier society with self-responsible groups and individuals. However, capitals – even stripped of their governmental functions – may offer a symbolical environment (a condensation of space and time) that precisely satisfies the wants of those who wish to politicise a way of life. Niches for pioneering behaviour may get dispersed over a wider territory but new types of political activity will gravitate to the capital even if the capitals official political status has dwindled.

Alternative states: Regions and postfordism rhetoric on the internet

European regions increasingly develop inter-regional and transnational visions. They not only compete with each other on the basis of traditional location factors (transport, taxes, and labour market) but also by calling up the image of an entirely alternative society which is portrayed as both flexible and capable of self-reproduction. In this article the presence of this (postfordist) discourse is investigated in Web sites of four European regions: Baden-Württemberg, Cataluña, Leningrad and Friesland. Baden-Württemberg confirms its reputation as one of the most outspoken representatives of the new regional assertiveness. Its rhetoric relies on a mixture of cultural, individual and technological arguments largely neglecting internal geographical variation. Although this type discourse can be easily emulated – irrespective of real world differences in the regimes of accumulation – not all regions seem to have (yet) succumbed to its formula.

Metropolitan government as a political pet? Realism and tradition in administrative reform in The Netherlands

Abstract Despite a general (international) dislike of new administrative tiers of government and more bureaucracy in the 1980s, The Netherlands showed a sudden political consensus on the theme of metropolitan government at the end of the decade. The readiness of small countries to surmount political differences if their national position in the world-market is at stake offers a plausible explanation for this phenomenon. The wavering history of administrative reform in this country, however, demands some restraint in our expectations. The results may be less straightforward than hoped for by politicians who focus on economic arguments. The (political) geography of The Netherlands is proposed as an important complicating factor in the creation of metropolitan government on the current basis.

GEOPOLITICS DEBATE IV Geopolitics as a Social Movement

The laudable aim to write history in terms of geopolitical ‘ages’ does not clarify the changes and varieties of geopolitics in a formal sense, i.e. the more explicit discussions about territory and politics among intellectuals and opinion makers. Judging by what we have considered to be geopolitics up to now, the author discerns certain common features (over and above the features that geopolitics shares with the general subject of political geography): the messianic experience of seeing new dimensions in the power scene and the mutual influence between academic and popular writing. This goes very well with the description of a ‘social movement’. The consequence of this approach is that we should pay attention to the local (national) and historic setting that gives rise to geopolitics. It also implies that geopolitics is something that necessarily rises and falls with the occurrence of crises or ‘peak’ experiences. Further the concept of ‘reframing’, important in social movement theory, raises the question if we might be able to define a kind of transformation (of perspective) that is characteristic of geopolitics.

The Territorial Factor

Nowadays political territoriality is profoundly put to the test by globalization, the rise of the network-society, international migration and new types of risk that state governments find hard to control. Yet, new political configurations do not invalidate the relevance of territory and territorial identity right away. Moreover, people who want to escape or forget foreign dominace still reach for the traditionally sovereign state (Eastern Europe, Asia).In this book an international group of political geographers analyse the meaning of post-modern transfromation in territoriality at different geographical scales: global, (inter) national and local. They cover such varied topics as the probability of a clash between civilizations, the rise of World-cities, the disintegration of African States, ethnic conflicts and politics in Europe, the meaning of a supranational territorial order (European Union), the end of the welfare state, nation-building and its symbols, Israeli cultural politics, urban regimes and local conflict-defense mechanisms. The perspectives put forward, match more general theoretical geography and political science and involve case studies from different parts of the World.This important new study is of immediate interest to students of all levels of politcial science, sociology, social geography, administrative science, international relations, contermpoary history, and to policy makers and politicians.

Geopolitics and religion

The affinity between geopolitics and religion is based on two assumptions: religions may foster territorial conflict and religions contain ideas about an ideal world order. The first assumption is controversial and the second does not necessarily imply that such ideas are also seen as prescriptions. What we anyhow can conclude is that religions have helped to establish national identities during the formation of nation-states and that religion or religious leaders can be active in mobilizing (ethnonational) protest against suppression. On the international scene, the role of religion as legitimating war has become topical after the attacks of September 11. The logic underlying the disciplines of geopolitics and political geography leads to two approaches in studying religion. First, the content of religious texts and jurisprudence may be analyzed on the occurrence of territorial ideas (this is particularly what ‘critical geopolitics’ claims to do). Territorial ideas are often connected with such concepts as holy land, holy war, and millennialism. The second important task is to establish under what conditions (territorial) bonds of solidarity are activated among the members of a religion. Solidarity is not an obvious fact and supposes the occurrence of critical international events like the Russian intervention in Afghanistan and subsequent formation of Muslim jihadists.

[Review of: R.W. Stump (2008) The geography of religion: faith, place, and space]

chapter that US–Mexico neoliberalism ‘has been accompanied by increased militarization of the US–Mexico border’ (p. 6), Smith and Bakker approach ‘neoliberal globalization’ as a ‘web’ of economic rather than geopolitical ‘opportunities and constraints’ with which transnational political activists must contend. That literally billions of dollars are spent annually on border enforcement in the US southwest, and that hundreds of thousands of migrants are deported from the interior annually, does not figure in their analysis. Indeed, Smith and Bakker do not directly address the role played by specifically undocumented Mexican nationals in US-based hometown associations and other transnational political initiatives, and thus how US immigration policing – either at the US southwest border or throughout the interior – plays into extraterritorial politics as well as various Mexican governments’ attempts to enroll their nationals in political dialogue. This is no doubt due to Smith and Bakker’s primary focus on the educated and mostly legally resident elite running the hometown associations, and suggests exciting avenues for future research.