The Interview: Robert Kaplan
Image Credit: Wikicommons

The Interview: Robert Kaplan

0 Likes
11 comments

In his new book, The Revenge of Geography: What the Map Tells Us About Coming Conflicts and the Battle Against Fate, Robert Kaplan (Stratfor Global Intelligence) contends that current global conflicts, including wars, political instability, and clashes over religion, can be better understood and even forecasted through close examination of the maps that chart our world. In this Q&A, The National Bureau of Asian Research's Abraham Denmark asks Kaplan how this theory relates to the Asia-Pacific and what challenges geography will present for the United States’ policy toward the region.

For those looking at the Asia-Pacific, what do you think is the most important message of your book?

The most important message about the Asia-Pacific in my book is that China is both big and small at the same time. China is big in that its influence extends all the way into the Russian Far East and Central and Southeast Asia. China is small in the sense that inside China there exist many minorities—Turks, Tibetans, Inner-Mongolians—that are restless. As its economic crisis ramps up, we can expect more ethnic unrest within China.

We should not take the country’s stability for granted. China may have unstable times ahead that could affect everything in the Asia-Pacific region, including disputes in the South China Sea and relations with Japan. The fate of the region hinges on whether China will remain stable.

What challenges will geography present to the international system as it is currently constructed?

The spread of long-range military capabilities and communications technologies is making the world smaller and collapsing distance. Yet this does not mean geography is irrelevant. Quite the opposite, geography is now more precious. And because geography is more precious, it is also less stable. The very finite size of the earth itself is a force for instability. We’re entering not so much a world where there is an East Asia, a South Asia, and a Southeast Asia, but a world where the whole of Eurasia constitutes one organic, interconnected geography.

How will geography affect the ability of the United States to address challenges in the Eurasian continent, specifically Iran, North Korea, China, and the Indo-Pacific Oceans?

There is nothing artificial about Iran, as the Iranian state completely configures with the Iranian plateau. The argument can be made that Syria, Saudi Arabia, Libya, and Iraq are artificial states, but you cannot make that argument about Iran. Given this, the Iranian state’s future prospects are very strong, even if the current regime may face crises and transform itself (or be replaced). The United States, because of geography, must think in these terms when dealing with Iran.

China recognizes the importance of North Korea’s geography. The two countries are connected by the Tumen River area, which could be a center for trade in the Russian Far East. So China is very interested in North Korea for geographic reasons. Therefore, what Beijing would like to see in North Korea is some sort of low-calorie version of a Communist buffer state—in other words, a system that is still authoritarian and is an ally of China but not quite as totalitarian as it is now.

Regarding the Indian and Pacific Oceans, I think we should view them as one maritime Eurasian rimland, stretching from the Horn of Africa all the way up to the Sea of Japan. So the United States has to stop thinking of this vast area of Eurasia as divided into separate parts and instead recognize how energy interconnects the resources of the Middle East and the consumers in Asia. Put differently, the Indian Ocean is the world’s energy interstate. The United States should therefore understand the interconnectivity of the Eurasian maritime rimland and develop strategies accordingly.

You discuss integration as an important trend across the Eurasian continent. How has it exposed or exasperated domestic divisions in the Asia-Pacific? Specifically focusing on the territorial disputes roiling the South and East China Seas, how have forces of integration, such as social media, influenced the ability of states to act calmly or rationally in tense situations?

Over the past few decades, countries that have historically been internally focused have begun to express their nationalism outward into the blue waters. This includes countries such as Vietnam, Malaysia, the Philippines, and China—which used to have unstable domestic situations and have consolidated themselves as strong states.

Where these countries have projected their power outward is where they have come into conflict. Disputes in the South China Sea, around which there may or may not be vast supplies of energy, have become symbols of statehood and patriotism in a global media environment. These disputes along with disputes in the East Sea and the Sea of Japan, show the reach of globalization and global media and that geography still matters intensely. The fight for status is still very strong.

You describe “shatter zones” as areas in Eurasia that are prone to conflict and could destabilize the region a great deal. What are the potential shatter zones in the Asia-Pacific, and how do they affect U.S. regional interests? What should the United States do about them?

I already mentioned the most important shatter zone in the Asia-Pacific, China itself. I would also say that the South China Sea is a shatter zone precisely because it has become so symbolic. It is easy to see that miscalculations could happen and that disputes could spiral out of hand.

The Korean Peninsula remains the principal shatter zone of the region because it is difficult to see good prospects in a global information environment for a country so closed off and hermetic. The outlook for the North Korean regime, as it currently runs itself, is not good. Therefore, we have to expect some sort of unstable meltdown on the Korean Peninsula. The North Korean regime may try to open up, to liberalize its economy, but vast changes never go smoothly. There are always miscalculations because such changes are difficult to implement. Because of this, the North Korean regime, and the Korean Peninsula in general, has to be considered the main potential shatter zone.

You argue that realism has become the dominant force in American foreign policy, and you wrote that “this means valuing order above freedom, because the latter only becomes important after the former has been established.” How does this apply to America’s strategy on how to integrate China into the existing international order? Some realists such as Henry Kissinger say that the United States should give China space in the international order while others call for more assertiveness and argue that China should adapt to the world. What do your book and the forces of geography more broadly suggest?

My book suggests that China is a “prison of nations” because although China is an ethnic Han cradle, it is surrounded by minorities. Minority issues will likely become more salient as China goes through a tumultuous transition. China has to go through some sort of tumultuous transition because it can’t keep on stimulating its economy to death. Basically what has been happening in China is a never-ending stimulus. China has to reform and reorganize its economy in some basic structural ways if it is going to have sufficient growth and stability.

The question of how much room should we give China inside the world economic system has to be answered in the context of a period of ongoing political and economic crises in China, a period we just entered and which will probably continue for quite some time. My tendency is to lean in the Kissinger direction, because China will not be able to satisfy the United States completely. China is just too big and too geographically important for the United States to completely alienate and isolate it.

You describe and compare the lessons of Vietnam and Munich as dominant metaphors in American strategic thought. As China’s power rises and it acts more assertively in disputes with neighbors, do you believe Munich is an accurate example or lesson for strategists?

No, I don’t believe that Munich is an accurate example for China. The Munich and Vietnam analogies should always be on our minds when we consider humanitarian interventions, but China is not Nazi Germany or even Iran. China is a legitimate state that is authoritarian but not totalitarian. Feisty political and economic debates occur in Beijing all the time. China is a legitimate member of the world system.

Rather than using the Munich or Vietnam extremes, the task will be how to accommodate China’s economic and military allies with our treaty allies (e.g., the Philippines and Japan) and our new de facto allies (e.g., Vietnam). The United States has to steer between letting China dominate the South China Sea and letting countries like Vietnam and the Philippines drag us into a conflict with China. The United States must walk a fine line between those two extremes.

Abraham Denmark is Senior Project Director for Political and Security Affairs at The National Bureau of Asian Research , where this interview originally appeared.

Comments
11
Patrick
September 24, 2012 at 00:23

But right wing US citizens do not govern the country, they are influential but president Barack Obama is proof that minorities too can rise to the top most positions.
How many Tibetian or Uyghur presidents has China had?

ImperiumVita
September 23, 2012 at 18:43

You advocate a "Multipolar System" as if it were worthy goal in itself. Do you consider the possibility that certain "poles" i.e. Countries, governed by certain political systems, may be more or less beneficial to peace and prosperity in the world than others? For extreme examples, would a "multipolar" world comprised of several Fascist, Authoritarian states with strict information control, be equally as desirable to you as a "multipolar world populated entirely by several Liberal Democracies?
 
Or for example, If there was a "multipolar" world comprised of several Fascist, Authoritarian states and several other Liberal Democracies, all of similar power levels, but aligned in such as way as to create a situation in which tensions between the two ideological blocs continually pushed states to war. You're fine with that?
 
Sensational examples aside. My point is that all nations are not created equally. I'd take a unipolar world dominated by A single nation committed to freedom and pursuit of happiness for individuals, and to growing trade and prosperity for all (like it or not, this has been the basis of USA foreign policy since before WWII), but who's tactics are sometimes heavy handed and even brutal, over a "multi-polar" world were Religo-Facsist states like Iran, or statist Ethno-Imperial countries like China, use the same tactics, but with the overriding goal not being the freedom of all people's, but merely accumulating more power and territory to the state, without respect for individual beyond tools of state power.

sun da pao
September 23, 2012 at 13:43

Dr kaplan may be right, then we may have to put up with the ccp for about a hundred years. But i believe freedom of the individual will rise again. Because when oppression has run its cause, enough people will rise up to fight the autocrats and the group of inner circle dictators of the ccp and its collaborators. But i won’t be there to see it but my spirit will be with them. The magna carta shall once again be our rallying call.

Leonard R.
September 23, 2012 at 11:17

@Bankotsu: "You might as well come and tell me that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction."

 
One red herring can feed a whole fifty cent brigade. 
I don't know about Iraq. But the PRC has WMD's. And PLA generals have already threatened to kill millions of Americans with them. So I don't care much about Iraq and neither should Americans.
 
China is the most dangerous enemy the US has faced since World War II. But Professor Kaplan calls it a 'legitimate' state'. I half agree. China is 'legitimate'. But it's a legitimate threat to the United States and should be viewed as such. China is a hostile foreign power.  How's that sound?
 
To follow Kaplan's advice will project weakness and lead to war sooner – rather than later.  Walking a 'fine line' has already been tried. It's time to try something else. 
 
The PLA's  intentions could not be more clear. And that needs to be starting point for US policy makers. What is needed now is clarity – not ambiguity. Western China scholars, diplomats, politicians and corporations have been played for fools long enough. It is time for a new look at US-China relations. And it's time for NEW people to look at where we are. The first priority must be to stop the bleeding, to stop doing what has not worked. So I disagree with professor Kaplan.  Instead of trying to 'walk a fine line', maybe America should start drawing some clear lines. 
 

Bankotsu
September 22, 2012 at 20:41

 "You can have demographic majorities and minorities, but the State itself and its values are independant of any ethnicity. "
Try telling that to the right wing in america.

Bankotsu
September 22, 2012 at 20:39

"Nothing short of signing over Guam to Beijing, as a gesture of friendship and watching haplessly, as it colonizes Vietnam and the Philippines will be enough to satisfy China."
You might as well come and tell me that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction.

ImperiumVita
September 22, 2012 at 14:51

You aren't thinking clearly.  Kaplan is thinking primarily about geography, and is thinking about states and populations in that context.  China as you point out is mainly a Han Chinese ethnic nation, it is ruled a Han Chinese Oligarchy.  But, tts periphery is Buddist Tibetans,  Muslim Uyghurs, Mongols, and Koreans in the North East. 
 
The USA while historically predominantly White European, is not a state founded on a uniform Ethnicity.  You can have demographic majorities and minorities, but the State itself and its values are independant of any ethnicity.  Why bring up the USA anyway?  The discussion is about Asia. 

Leonard R.
September 22, 2012 at 04:52

 
Except for the salutary effects of looking at a map every now & then, there is little value in professor Kaplan's analysis here. Further, he is in is error when he writes: 
—-
"The United States has to steer between letting China dominate the South China Sea and letting countries like Vietnam and the Philippines drag us into a conflict with China. The United States must walk a fine line between those two extremes."

 
If the US follows that advice, Beijing wins.  The US loses. China's neighbors are swallowed up. There is no 'fine line' that can be walked with Beijing. The PRC is a problem that cannot be appeased, contained or finessed away. Washington elites and western corporations have created this monster. Now the world has to deal with it.
 
Kaplan is wrong. Nothing short of signing over Guam to Beijing, as a gesture of friendship and watching haplessly, as it colonizes Vietnam and the Philippines will be enough to satisfy China.

Bankotsu
September 22, 2012 at 00:51

"I have no patience for any nation that upon developing itself feels the need to intimidate and agravate others"
I have the same views. That is why I oppose the Unipolar system.

JohnX
September 21, 2012 at 16:03

We lived without China for 50 ys from the end of WW2 and we can live without her again.
 
I have no patience for any nation that upon developing itself feels the need to intimidate and agravate others.
 
You may miss her influence, I do not. So don't tell me to care as I don't.

Bankotsu
September 21, 2012 at 11:03

"My book suggests that China is a “prison of nations” because although China is an ethnic Han cradle, it is surrounded by minorities."
China is surrounded by minorities? I don't get that. The minorities are less than 9% of chinese population. The non white population of U.S is close to 30%, so who is surrounded? 

Share your thoughts

Your Name
required
Your Email
required, but not published
Your Comment
required

Newsletter
Sign up for our weekly newsletter
The Diplomat Brief