Of course, politics and geopolitics are undeniable, since each political party and group within a state and sovereign state has different sorts of interests and interests of each party or group and each state often contradict with those of others. But the problem arises when politics within a country boundary and geo-politics that are sometimes based on unacceptable grounds can at times lead to enormous destruction or bring enormous negative impacts on many. These not only kill and displace millions of people but also bring many other negative impacts including economic harm and the suppression of gifted and talented individuals in many countries, even when political or geopolitical moves could be easily avoided.
It is mentionable here that geopolitics, whichwas originally coined by the Swedish political scientist Rudolf Kjellén about the turn of the 20th century, itself is a type of politics. It is an international politics mostly regarding economy especially economic geography and is studied in international relations. While geopolitics usually refers to the interaction of the relative powers of the different spatial units such as states, politics involves all activities associated with the running of a government or an organization or a movement. In most cases, different political parties or groups are involved with politics within a state boundary. But in geopolitics, different states and multinational or international organizations or groups are the players. Different sorts of trade and other pacts — between or among states — and wars can be examples of geopolitics, even if these can be driven by national politics.
Of course, every country is involved with geopolitics, which is closely related to geo-strategy that involves comprehensive planning, assigning means for achieving national goals, securing assets of military or political significance, depending on its interests. In fact, there is a wide range of reasons for engaging with geo-politics. Economic interests or interests in financial gains and other economic resources are the most important reasons for geopolitical engagement. But, undeniably, there are many other important reasons for geopolitical engagement including violent conflict, the exertion of influence over other countries or organizations or interests in global and regional hegemony, political extremism or diverse issues that have the potential to affect geopolitical stability.
But politics within a national boundary and geopolitics or geopolitical competition have enormous impacts — both positive and negative. In fact, positive impacts of these are good political practices and economic, social and other sorts of development. After the Second World War, geopolitical competition especially among global powers including the USA and its allied countries and the USSR and its allied countries brought enormous economic (such as high growth rate), educational, infrastructural and other sorts of development, not only in the developed countries but also in developing and less developed countries. Geopolitical competition establishes intergovernmental organizations that bring benefits to member countries of diverse organizations including the United Nations, the European Union, NATO, SAARC and BIMSTEC. It increases cooperation among states on many occasions such as climate change; moreover, it improves the security conditions in the world.
On the contrary, the negative effects of politics within the national boundary of a country and geopolitics or geopolitical competition are also enormous. While politics in a national boundary sometimes leads to avoidable and unavoidable civil wars (with or without any external support), the suppression of opponents at an unacceptable level, increased corruption and many other negative impacts, geopolitics leads to avoidable and unavoidable wars, killings and the displacement of millions of people in the world. Moreover, geopolitics sometimes leads to increased competition of weapons of mass destruction, territorial expansion based on might and economic loss through hampering investment and some other ways and increases avoidable and unavoidable tensions. In fact, inter-country military wars and trade wars reduce investment in many countries, including the warring countries.
Now some relevant questions can be raised: How much the suppression of opponents by the ruling party is justified? Should it be a norm in some countries to suppress opponents? Are civil war and military war justified always? Is war avoidable when it is not well-justified? How much economic harm is justified by one country over another mainly because of geopolitical competition? Are global and regional institutions on the right track for dealing with challenges of geopolitical competition that brings harm after harm in terms of the killings of millions that can be avoidable? Obviously, there are important questions regarding the practices of politics and geopolitics — especially in the name of the interests of the party-in-power and sovereign states. Because of the space limit, I will focus on a few aspects in some detail.
Of course, war is usually not acceptable as it kills many and brings enormous economic and other harm. But because of self-defense, which is not clearly defined though, war is acceptable. In fact, every state has the right to defend itself from external threats. Such a right is given to each sovereign state in many international documents including the UN Charter and treaties. But the war for mere hegemony does not seem to be acceptable as it is now well-justified. But the fact is that wars and civil wars occur between or among countries and between or among parties or groups within a state (caused by internal political problems and, sometimes, geopolitics) respectively on many occasions without any acceptable justification.
The harassment of opponents by ruling parties is not uncommon. In many countries, especially less or inadequately developed democracies, this is more common, even though it can be avoided on many occasions. But, undeniably, political parties including opponents and every citizen have the right to do politics especially in those countries where democracy exists. Moreover, economic harm by one country over another or one party by another is not uncommon in the world, even if there are differences across countries. Sometimes, economic sanctions are given without any valid reason, though these are sometimes needed based on justifiable grounds. As expected, both politicians and geo-politicians need to rethink varied acts and effects — wars/civil wars, the suppression of opponents and economic harm and other negative impacts — that politics and geopolitics lead to.
Not less important is that many individuals — especially talented and gifted — are sometimes suppressed by politics and geopolitics, even if they are not directly involved with politics and are constructive for the nation and beyond. I do not see any justified reasons for such an act of both politicians and geo-politicians. Of course, political party interests and national interests may compel many countries, to take steps for materializing party interests and national interests, sometimes without any well-justification. But, why should some constructively oriented talented and gifted individuals be suppressed by politics and geopolitics? Is it acceptable at all? If it is justified somewhat even, then what are the justifications? Are not politicians and geo-politicians answerable to these questions? I strongly believe that they are answerable, no matter how powerful they are.
Source: This article was published in the Frontier Post in July 11, 2021.
