Actually, It's Mountains

Sometimes the toughest obstacles are the naturally occurring ones.

BY ROBERT D. KAPLAN | JULY/AUGUST 2010

Geography, it has been famously said, is the most fundamental cause behind political fortune because it is the most unchanging. The truculent personalities of Prussia and czarist Russia, to say nothing of their successor states, had much to do with their being land powers with few natural borders to protect them, whereas Britain, the United States, and Venice could each in its own way champion liberty because they have had the luxury to be protected from meddlesome neighbors by expanses of surrounding water. Precisely because geography is so overpowering and unchanging a factor in a state's destiny, there is a danger of taking it too far. So rather than believing that geography inevitably dooms states to failure, think of it as yet another complexifying factor for the weakest of countries. Their difficult geographies should spur us to action, rather than lead us to despair.

And difficult they are. Consider Africa, where nearly half of the top 60 countries in the Failed States Index are located, in most cases south of -- or at least at the southern extremity of -- the Sahara. Although Africa is the world's second-largest continent, with an area three times that of Europe, its coastline south of the Sahara is about a fifth as long and lacks many good natural harbors. Few of tropical Africa's rivers are navigable from the ocean, dropping as they do from interior tableland to coastal plains by a series of falls and rapids. The Sahara hindered human contact with the north for too many centuries, so that Africa was little exposed to the great Mediterranean civilizations. All this has combined to afflict Africa with the burden of geographic isolation.

Unlike the most remote African countries, Kenya, Ethiopia, and Somalia have, thanks to their proximity to the Indian Ocean, had access to global trade from the Middle East and Asia since late antiquity and the Middle Ages. But these countries have their own problems related to geography. Kenya is burdened by tribalism in its interior, Ethiopia by its mountainous and drought-prone landscape, and Somalia by the fact that it constitutes sprawling desert populated by clans that have little or nothing in common. Somalia also has the longest coastline on mainland Africa, close to major sea lines of communication. And given that piracy is the maritime ripple effect of anarchy on land, it is no surprise that Somali piracy has become an international problem.

Yemen, on the opposite shore of the Gulf of Aden from Somalia, is equally burdened. Its 22 million people are running out of groundwater, and thus its prognosis is not good. Like Ethiopia, Yemen is riven by mountains, meaning its central government has difficulty accessing vast reaches of this deeply fragmented country. The regime must keep peace through a fragile balance of tribal relations because no one tribe or sect has been able to establish an identity for the Yemeni state. The defining aspect of Yemen is the diffusion of power rather than the concentration of it. For example, since ancient times, the Wadi Hadhramaut, a 100-mile-long oasis in southeastern Yemen surrounded by great tracts of desert and stony plateau, has through caravan routes and Arabian ports maintained closer relations with India and Indonesia than with other parts of Yemen itself.

Iraq, 1,400 miles to the north, combines the Kurdish mountains with the Mesopotamian plain and desert, putting ethnic groups together that either were previously on their own or part of a multinational empire. Keeping them united in an artificially conceived state required levels of force unseen even in the Arab world, as evinced by the rules of Saddam Hussein and the previous military dictators going back to 1958.

Head east to Afghanistan and Pakistan, whose geographic woes are such that neither country's borders have much logic. In the west, Afghanistan is an extension of the Iranian plateau. In its northeast, the Hindu Kush mountains separate the Pashtun tribal belt straddling Afghanistan and Pakistan from the demographic homelands of the Tajiks and Uzbeks; Afghanistan's most natural borders are thus situated in the middle of the country. Pakistan is an artificial puzzle piece that, unlike India, has no logical frontiers, so different, territorially based ethnic groups exist uneasily together.

To the southeast, Burma's geographical predicament is equally precarious. The country, though rugged and underdeveloped, is as large as France and is formed around the lush cradle of the Irrawaddy River valley, surrounded by highlands on three sides. In general, ethnic Burmans live in the valley, and the minority ethnic groups such as the Karen, Karenni, Shan, and Kachin live in the sprawling hill country. It was to control the irregular armies of some of these tribal groups, which make up a third of the population, that Burma's military took power in the first place in 1962. So, behind Burma's benighted, authoritarian regime lie structural problems of ethnicity and geography.

And it's not just rivers and mountains that complicate the development of fragile states. For African countries like the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Guinea, Nigeria, and Sudan, as well as Iraq and Burma, there is the geographic factor of oil, natural gas, and strategic minerals and metals to contend with. Political elites often fight over the spoils, only adding to instability.

None of these places is doomed. Human agency can triumph over determinism. But we should not be naive either: Geography is one more strike against them.

MASSOUD HOSSAINI/AFP/Getty Images

 

Robert D. Kaplan is author of Monsoon: The Indian Ocean and the Future of American Power, to be published in October. He is a senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security and a national correspondent for the Atlantic.

CGRALA

2:26 AM ET

July 1, 2010

Not enough geography in politics

Kaplan's stuff is a good response to the gradual elimination of geography in political science.

Down here in New Zealand we often get our politicians comparing us to Sweden or Norway - a ridiculous comparison considering our nearest neighbour (Oz) is 2500kms away.

This geography will permanently shape our economy and politics

 

DEPETRIS@WORDPRESS.COM

2:07 PM ET

July 5, 2010

Borders more of an effect

What to most of these states have in common with one another, other than geographical difficulties. I hate to preach it, but the answer is western colonialism, which essentially demarcated these states with artificial borders in the first place. One of the reasons why the African continent is so rife with internal turmoil, ethnic discord, and tribal violence is because many of these entities were forced together by a border drawn on a map by westerners. Likewise, Iraq's ethnic turmoil probably could have been avoided- or at least maintained- if so many different communities were not squeezed into a single nation-state. Kurds span across three countries in the Middle East (Turkey, Iraq, and Iran), Pashtuns span across two (Afghanistan and Pakistan), and Arabs on the Arabian peninsula are essentially divided in five separate groupings.

Geography certainly is a complicating factor to many of these failed and failing states, but artificial borders may have for an effect on their populations.

http://www.depetris.wordpress.com

 

MRPARRIS

10:18 AM ET

July 7, 2010

His comment about western

His comment about western colonialism is absolutely true. It may not be a factor with the issue with Afghanistan and Pakistan, though. Prozac unneeded.

 

EXOTTOYUHR

10:24 AM ET

July 7, 2010

He has a point.

The way Kipling conceptualized "the white man's burden" was that colonialism would bring the colonized peoples up to Western standards, whereupon their history would end up like that of the United States or Canada: near-complete autonomy, plus friendliness with the home country. I think there were a few countries where this process did complete, though there are not many, and they elude me at the moment.

In most of the word, this process was abandoned halfway through; and much like open-heart surgery, abandoning it halfway through was a bad idea. Theodore Dalrymple has an article on the consequences of this: http://www.city-journal.org/html/13_2_oh_to_be.html .

Compound the effects of premature withdrawal from the colonies (aided and abetted by the Communist world -- the KGB, unable to win the First World, decided to go for the Third, and the Chinese have been fleecing Africa mercilessly for fifty years) with the unnatural borders that most of these countries have (Congo-Kinshasa and the belt of Sahel countries are good examples here), and you get the current situation.

Some of the borders do reflect history, though. Syria is more or less where it should be (apart from Lebanon); Persia is small but recognizable; Burma is almost as historically accurate as Thailand (which, of course, was never conquered: thus the name was changed from "Siam" to "Land of the Free").

 

KOJI

12:05 AM ET

July 9, 2010

Not for the want of trying

Never a full presence, but history reports that they weren't exactly left in peace either.

 

LITTLEMANTATE

8:14 PM ET

July 6, 2010

Mother of God! Are you serious?

"The Sahara hindered human contact with the north for too many centuries, so that Africa was little exposed to the great Mediterranean civilizations."

I'm calling b.s. on this. There was caravan contact between the Western African societies and the Mediterranean coast throughout the Middle Ages. Hence all the Muslims in West Africa. Contact between the two probably goes back to ancient times. The Sahel was a pretty dynamic place culturally and economically. The Hausa, for example, were born of this interaction.

A main inhibitor for the development of Subsaharan Africa was less a case of geology or geography, and more of fauna (particularly of the microscopic variety).

"Yemen, on the opposite shore of the Gulf of Aden from Somalia, is equally burdened. Its 22 million people are running out of groundwater, and thus its prognosis is not good. Like Ethiopia, Yemen is riven by mountains, meaning its central government has difficulty accessing vast reaches of this deeply fragmented country. The regime must keep peace through a fragile balance of tribal relations because no one tribe or sect has been able to establish an identity for the Yemeni state. The defining aspect of Yemen is the diffusion of power rather than the concentration of it. "

Is this geology or culture? The San in Southern Africa, for example, never experienced overpopulation like we see in the Middle East. They also limited their family size. But Yemen was also the site of ancient, relatively stable and advanced societies dependent on irrigation.

I'd be interested to hear Kaplan's take on mountainous hotbeds of violence such as Norway, Iceland, Switzerland, and Wales.

 

NICOLI719

11:38 PM ET

July 6, 2010

Um, really?

Mr. Kaplan, take a look at Africa's place on the map and the first thing you notice is that it's right in the middle of the ancient world. People from West Africa traded gold north over the Sahara since ancient times, and the lack of deep water harbors that you blame its underdevelopment on certainly did nothing to stop the slave trade. I'd say that was more influential in the continent's modern underdevelopment than anything else.
You also confuse tribalism with geography - what does that have to do with mountains?!?! The divisions in modern Africa's states have more to do with their once colonial masters, and its continuing under development stems from repression and exploitations by post colonial governments.
Oh, and if you want to see a fine example of tribalism, just watch the World Cup.

 

DISIGNY

9:10 AM ET

July 7, 2010

"Geography"

Since all his comments about how the "failed States" geographic conditions also apply to the most "sucessful" ones as well, one is left wondering about whether this is all nonsense or just mostly.

 

XGOLDSERA

12:56 PM ET

July 7, 2010

Evolution of Society

Just as in the past, innovation has occurred due to certain other inventions that allow people to live a certain way. For example, if we hadn't invented sewers and toilets, we wouldn't have the time for the inventions of cell phones. I think in the same token, with the challenges of living in difficult terrain, groups people are required to spend more time on things other than raising their society up to another level. Although, when I was in Afghanistan, people didn't have running water or sewer but did have cell phones...