GEOPOLITICS AND THE STUDY OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF SOCIAL SCIENCES OF MIDDLE EAST TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY BY SEMRA RANÂ GÖKMEN IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN THE DEPARTMENT OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AUGUST 2010 Approval of the Graduate School of Social Sciences Prof. Dr. Meliha Altunışık Director I certify that this thesis satisfies all the requirements as a thesis for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Prof. Dr. Meliha Altunışık Head of Department This is to certify that we have read this thesis and that in our opinion it is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a thesis for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Prof. Dr. Necati Polat Supervisor Examining Committee Members Prof. Dr. İhsan Dağı (METU, IR) Prof. Dr. Necati Polat (METU, IR) Prof. Dr. Nuri Yurdusev (METU, IR) Prof. Dr. İdris Bal (Police Academy) Assoc. Prof. Dr. Mesut Yeğen (METU, SOC) ii I hereby declare that all information in this document has been obtained and presented in accordance with academic rules and ethical conduct. I also declare that, as required by these rules and conduct, I have fully cited and referenced all material and results that are not original to this work. Name, Last Name: Semra Rana Gökmen Signature: iii ABSTRACT GEOPOLITICS AND THE STUDY OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS Gökmen, Semra Rana Ph.D., Department of International Relations Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Necati Polat August 2010, 226 pages This study seeks to examine the main theories and theorists of geopolitical imagining and argue for an intrinsic relation between traditional geopolitics and the development of international relations both in theory and practice. By doing so the study aims to pursue an assessment of the insights of critical geopolitics, as reflected in the works of John Agnew, Geraróid Ó Tuathail (Gerard Toal), Simon Dalby, Klaus Dodds and others, for the theory of IR, more specifically its dominant paradigm realism. The aim of this study, in other words, is to identify and describe the geopolitical assumptions that have led IR theory to turn out to be „realist‟. In this respect, throughout the work similarities with regard to the basic premises of the two fields, parallel ways of thinking, how visualizations and perceptions shaped the world and how the world in return shaped them as well as the emergence of “paradigmatic blindspots” will be handled in an effort to put forth an answer to the question: “Why iv do IR theory books not contain any chapters on traditional and critical geopolitics? And why is it that they should?” Keywords: Geopolitics, Critical Geopolitics, International Relations Theory, Realism v ÖZ JEOPOLİTİK VE ULUSLARARASI İLİŞKİLER ÇALIŞMALARI Gökmen, Semra Rana Doktora, Uluslar arası İlişkiler Bölümü Tez Yöneticisi: Prof. Dr. Necati Polat Ağustos 2010, 226 sayfa Bu çalışmanın amacı jeopolitik tahayyülün temel varsayımları ile teorisyenlerini incelemek ve “jeopolitik tahayyül” ile hem pratik hem de teorik manada “Uluslararası İlişkiler” arasındaki ilişkiyi ele almaktır. Bu itibarla çalışma, John Agnew, Geraróid Ó Tuathail (Gerard Toal), Simon Dalby gibi yazarların çalışmalarında ortaya konulan eleştirel jeopolitiğin Uluslararası İlişkiler teorisi ve onun temel paradigması olan realizme getirebileceği katkıların değerlendirilmesini hedeflemektedir. Bir diğer deyişle bu çalışmanın amacı, Uluslararası İlişkiler teorisini „realist‟ yapan coğrafi varsayımların incelenmesi ve tespitidir. Bu çerçevede çalışma boyunca, iki alandaki benzer dayanak noktaları ve parallel düşünce biçimleri ele alınacak; algılamaların dünyayı, dünyanın da algılamaları nasıl etkilediği ve “paradigmatik kör noktaların” nasıl oluştuğu ortaya konulmaya çalışılacak ve “Niçin vi Uluslararası İlişkiler Teorisi kitaplarında geleneksel ya da eleştirel jeopolitiğe atıf yok; ve niçin olmalı?” sorusu yanıtlanmaya çalışılmıştır. Anahtar Kelimeler: Jeopolitik, Eleştirel Jeopolitik, Uluslararası İlişkiler Teorisi, Realizm vii To Vecdi and Özgür viii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I thank to Prof. Dr. Necati Polat for his guidance, insight and generous support throughout this study. Without his guidance and support I would not be able to write and more importantly finish this study. I express my sincere appreciation to Prof. Dr. Nuri Yurdusev, Assoc. Prof. Mesut Yeğen, Prof. Dr. İhsan Dağı and Prof. Dr. İdris Bal for their support and advice during the final stages of this work. My husband Özgür and my son Vecdi provided me with the necessary time, space and love during the difficult process of writing. I should also thank to my larger family, Gülşen-Halil Sezal, Zeynep-Haluk-Aytaç Gökmen, Esra-Kenan-Dilara Karademir, Özden-İhsan Sezal and Didem Akpak for their endless support and help. Thanks also go to my colleague Hugh Turner who had reviewed the earlier drafts of this text and made some vital contributions. ix TABLE OF CONTENTS PLAGIARISM ………………………………………………………………………iii ABSTRACT …………………………………………………………………….......iv ÖZ …………………………………………………………………………………...vi DEDICATION ……………………………………………………………………..viii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS …………………………………………………………..ix TABLE OF CONTENTS …………………………………………………………….x LIST OF FIGURES ………………………………………………………………..xiii CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ……………………………………………………...........1 2. GEOPOLITICS……………………………………………………………….8 2.1. Introduction ………………………………………………………...........8 2.2. Definition of the Term …………………………………………............11 2.3. European Geopolitics ……………………………………………….….20 2.3.1. Friedrich Ratzel ……………………………………………........23 2.3.2. Rudolf Kjellen…………………………………………………...27 2.3.3. Sir Halford Mackinder…………………………………………..29 2.3.4. Karl Haushofer…………………………………………………..35 2.4. US Geopolitics………………………………………………………….44 2.4.1. From the Late Nineenth Century to the………………………....44 Second World War 2.4.2. Cold War Geopolitics…………………………………………...53 2.5. Post-Cold War Geopolitics……………………………………………..60 2.6. Concluding Remarks…………………………………………………....68 x 3. CRITICAL GEOPOLITICS………………………………………………...70 3.1. Introduction…………………………………………………………......70 3.2. Modern Geopolitical Discourse ……………………………………......76 3.2.1. The Geopolitical Discourse of the Hegemon……………………81 3.2.2. Our Need to Categorize, Identify and Belong…………………..86 3.2.3. Identity Politics and the Creation of the “Other”………………..95 3.2.4. Problems of the Western/European Identity and………………..99 Modern Geopolitical Discourse 3.3. Concluding Remarks: The Reason of Consistency……………………110 4. GEOPOLITICAL IMAGINATION: THE IMPORTANCE OF MAPS…..114 4.1. Introduction: Seeing and Beeing………………………………………114 4.2. The Strength of the Map ………………………………………………119 4.3. The Orientation of a Map and Map Distortions ………………………121 4.4. Maps and Power……………………………………………………….124 4.5. The Mercator Projection ………………………………………………133 4.6. Concluding Remarks…………………………………………………..139 5. MAINSTREAM IR THEORY AND BASIC ASSUMPTIONS…………..141 5.1. Introduction: The Discipline of International ………………………...141 Relations and Geopolitics 5.2. IR Theories: A Concise Outline ………………………………………142 5.3. Major Debates…………………………………………………………147 5.4. Mainstream IR Theory Realism ………………………………………155 5.5. Consistencies Between the Two Fields………………………………..156 5.5.1. Common Assumptions: Power, State and Nation……………...156 xi 5.5.2. Paradigmatic Blind Spots………………………………………165 5.5.2.1. Equating Nation with State………………………………..165 5.5.2.2. The Distinction Between High and Low Politics…………173 5.5.3. Common Aims and Ambitions………………………………...176 5.5.4. The Impact of Immigrants……………………………………..181 5.6. Concluding Remarks…………………………………………………..186 6. CONCLUSION: IMPLICATIONS FOR THE STUDY OF IR…………...187 BIBLIOGRAPHY………………………………………………………………….201 APPENDICES 1. Türkçe Özet………………………………………………………………...213 2. Cirriculum Vitae…………………………………………………………...226 xii LIST OF FIGURES FIGURES Figure 1 Mackinder‟s Map of Natural Seats of Power……………………………..32 Figure 2 The „Heartland‟, from The Nazi Strike (1942)……………………………43 Figure 3 McArthur‟s Universal Corrective Map of the World……………………125 Figure 4 Polar Projection of the World……………………………………………133 Figure 5 Mercator Projection of the World……………………………………….138 Figure 6 Europe as a “Queen”…………………………………………………….141 xiii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION As an International Relations (IR) student I never had any particular interest in geopolitics or any theory relating to it. Whether classical or contemporary, geopolitical theories always struck me as being intellectually impoverished, strongly biased toward the interests of one group or another, and as being of at best secondary importance. They were, in my opinion, nothing more than the attempts of certain authors to become popular and to write sellable books. In other words I treated them as tabloid theories. It was when I signed up for a lecture entitled ―The Politics of Global Space‖ during my doctoral program that my thoughts on the matter began to change. In this class students read the work of authors from the golden age of geopolitics as well as scholars from the field of critical geopolitics. These readings piqued my interest in geographical studies and whetted my geopolitical appetite. To my surprise it was quite exciting to read the passionate and ambitious nineteenth and early twentieth century geopolitical texts as well as the books of scholars belonging to the then newly emerging field of critical geopolitics. It was this experience that led me to choose geopolitics as the topic of my PhD thesis, though by the time I arrived at this decision I still lacked a precise research question. 1 As a long time lover of IR theory, and after having read and re-read the