The new geopolitics: a prospective approach to national power
The new geopolitics consolidates planning as an articulating axis between national and foreign policy.
In this sense, prospective studies, especially in the defence sector, must take into account the trends of this discipline of study, mainly in the economic, technological, environmental and development fields.
The demand for well-being on the part of the population obliges the State to carry out studies for the formulation of public policies. Nowadays, strategic planning is one of the tools that aim to establish medium and long-term goals, involving elements with sufficient capacity to achieve the development of a nation. Therefore, in this incessant struggle for power, and under a concept of free markets, globalisation and the general welfare of the population, it is necessary to identify the role of geopolitics as a useful tool for decision-making at the highest level.
The concepts of Haushofer and Ratzel in the construction of a theory of power state that the amount of square metres (living space) is decisive for national power and potential. Nowadays, however, this theory can easily be refuted as technology and the development of science have become determining factors in assessing the degree of influence of one state over another.
Under the considerations of power theory, some countries can sustain the development of an arms race, the support of the population and even the strategies of their state policies. As Clausewitz put it ("war is but the continuation of the activity of politics by other means"), these elements are key to success in war, achieving the objectives of the state. It is therefore imperative to recognise that any state will be able to develop strategies where the desired objectives can be achieved without the confrontation of its military forces. Throughout history, there is good evidence and results of such strategies.
The current geopolitical reality imposes new challenges and opportunities to resolve conflicts of interest through international cooperation, while keeping a strategic eye on or questioning the balance of power. However, uncertainty is a constant, as are the conditions and the actors. In this relentless desire for improvement, two types of strategic - geopolitical thinking cannot go unmentioned. The first, under a realpolitik approach ("the enemy of my enemy is my friend"), which facilitates the building of alliances. The second, following a strategic and confrontational approach ("the achievement or attainment of my opponent's objectives affects the achievement of my own"), making it imperative that the opponent does not achieve his objectives. Consequently, under these two thoughts a question arises: Is this a hypocritical relationship or rather a relationship of interest?
Despite the complexity of the strategic environment, countries are becoming increasingly intertwined and interdependent, both in terms of the global nature of threats and the commonalities of their development. Today, highly competitive regional blocs are being established, where advances in robotics, electronics, communications, biotechnology, as well as their military capabilities and level of interoperability are measured. All of this is marked by a common aspect: the defence of their interests.
Within this context, everything indicates that geopolitics in the 21st century will be marked by the following aspects: 1) the impact of the economy in a market that has no flag or nationality, 2) technology as a determining variable, 3) the replacement of rivalry by cooperation, 4) sustainable development within a supranational policy of environmental protection, and 5) the promotion of democracy with security as an essential element for development and well-being.
With regard to the first of these aspects, the free market can be defined as the predominant economic model worldwide, with the exception of some activities considered to belong to the state, such as laws, the maintenance of public order, or national defence, among others. In this sense, when referring to the free market, economic activities and transactions that depend exclusively on the free initiative of individuals are considered. This interaction is generated in an environment in which individuals are free to pursue their goals and maximise their profits without state intervention. However, there are certain discrepancies between activities that - in one way or another - should be controlled by the state and those that should be freely initiated. Thus, the generation of wealth without any kind of control, through the exploitation of resources that are essential for the life and development of a state, is complex and controversial from a nationalist and controlling point of view. In this respect, a retrospective look at Peru at the beginning of the 20th century shows that the arrival of foreign capital set in motion an economic policy of exports, beneficial to a certain group. However, this situation did not allow for an increase in national power and potential, because these power groups had an abstract concept of what the homeland and the State meant. In many cases, these concepts are simply not within their imaginary.
How can we quantify the power of a state? To answer this question, econometric models facilitate the determination of national power and potential by taking as the main variable the number of square kilometres a state possesses. In other words, the larger the territory, the greater the power. Nowadays, however, this variable can lose value if a state does not have adequate technological advances for its development. Consequently, geopolitical principles and theories that respond to a qualitative study that pretend to be expressed quantitatively by mathematical tools are quite relative.
The second aspect is related to technological progress. In this respect, in the domain of cyberspace, the lack of an international normative framework facilitates the understanding of the dangers to which states - and therefore individuals - are exposed. This situation is reflected in actions ranging from identity theft, financial crime, or the manipulation of weapons of mass destruction, among others. On the other hand, the National Centre for Strategic Planning (CEPLAN), as the governing body for planning in Peru and based on a prospective vision, has presented a management document for the creation of policies and plans. These scenarios allow an analysis of how increased technology and mechanisation can have a radical impact on overall production patterns, as well as on production costs and labour reduction. Under this approach, countries that dominate the field of technology (either by their own initiative or by exporting it for use) will set the tone for the generation of national power and potential.
The third aspect refers to the way in which rivalry can be overcome between two states that at some point had to fight over territorial disputes through the use of arms. All the more so if this war was not fought out of their own free will, but in the interests of third parties. Today, however, international cooperation and various organisations such as the United Nations (UN) and the Organisation of American States (OAS) are setting the tone for the construction of new spaces for dialogue and trade between countries. In this respect, the Harvard-Fisher model of conflict and interest resolution presents criteria and various alternatives in which the parties in conflict benefit equitably.
The fourth aspect, sustainable development, as the basis for the development of new generations, is a commitment not only to the country's population, but also to the world's population. In a country like Peru, where its source of wealth is based on exports of raw materials, it is important to articulate the objectives and goals of public and private institutions in order to achieve sustained economic, political, social and environmental development. A responsible country is therefore a country that is recognised and integrated into the international community.
The promotion of democracy with security, as a key element for development and well-being, is the fifth and final aspect. Undoubtedly, this is a mandatory element for the governance and governability of any state. Consequently, what we seek to establish is how a political doctrine that advocates an economic policy that is not placed in the international context can cause a country's economic and social imbalance. Therefore, a democratic state with the two variables (governance and governability) in balance is a state that promotes development.
The new perspective of geopolitics leads to a new look at multidimensional global interest and security relations. Moreover, strategic planning in which national objectives are internalised by all levels of government and are also in line with the international context will facilitate a state's development path. On the other hand, the opportunity for states to join supranational organisations and the opportunities for foreign trade strengthen national potential and power. In this sense, it is necessary to remember that states - within an international context - do not have friends, but rather common interests where the instruments of national power complement each other in order to have weight and bargaining power. Consequently, geopolitics should be understood as the method of study that allows for the strategic movement of a state's key pieces within the great international chessboard.
Manuel Paz Ramos, Colonel of the Peruvian Army/CEEEP