Mico A.

Galang International Political System

4POL2 19 July 2013

Geography and the International System

In examining the relationship between geography and the international system, it can be

said that the general pattern of the interaction of states result from the influences of geographical

factors. This is manifested in two ways. First, it configures the foreign policy of a state. And,

conversely, it also determines the limitations of what a state could accomplish in the

international arena. This is not to suggest that human agency should be discarded, but rather a

recognition that such geographical factors are still relevant since the boundaries it impose

facilitate interaction among states (Kaplan, 2012).

According to Spykman (as cited in Kaplan, 2012, pp. 29-30), geography is the most

important factor to consider in the interaction of states – embodied in their foreign policies –

since it is the most permanent. This stems from the fact that since the different regions of the

world are pervaded by different physical, climatic, and cultural features, geography – the study

of such features – can either facilitate or hinder movement which in turn ascertains the ability of

states to interact (Buzan & Little, 2000). Hence, geography influences the manner in which the

international system is formed. An example would be the interaction of states during the Cold

War-era which saw the emergence of a bipolar international system. After the Second World

War, the United States and the Russia found themselves in a collision course that would define

world politics for the next four decades. The Cold War – later characterized as a global

competition between the two superpowers – initially began with disagreements on how post-war

Europe, in particular the rearrangement of its boundaries, is going to be handled (Perry, 1989).

Such disagreements, however, are rooted in geography. Russia’s predicament is that it is a

1
geographically insecure country (Kaplan, 2012). As a land power and the largest country in the

world, Russia has a very long border which it shares with many countries. Starting from the

northeastern portion of the Korean peninsula, Russia’s border would stretch until Eastern

Europe. Without natural borders especially in the western front of the country, Russia has a

history of invasions, most prominent of which were those of Napoleon Bonaparte (1812) and

Adolf Hitler (1941). Thus, in the absence of natural boundaries, Russia easily adopted a policy of

establishing communist regimes in the eastern portion of Europe not only because of its doctrine

of supporting communist revolutionary movements, but more importantly to erect a bulwark

against possible invasion emanating from the west. The United States, on the other hand, was

bent on preventing an expansion of the Russian sphere of influence through the policy of

containment which entails encircling Russia with American allies lest tipping the balance of

power in Russia’s favor. Therefore, the erstwhile wartime allies have paved the way for an

eventual superpower rivalry – that inaugurated a bipolar international system – which was

predicated on geographical factors.

While geography delineates what a state can do, it also imposes certain boundaries of

what it could not accomplish in the world. Such boundaries, as mentioned above, limit how the

states interact with each other and thus configure the international system. For example, several

decades prior to the end of the Second World War, the world witnessed the continuation of a

multipolar international system (Kennedy, 1987). Shortly before World War II started, Hitler and

Joseph Stalin signed a non-aggression pact. Barely three years thereafter, Hitler, in an attempt to

further expand Nazi Germany’s territory and secure vital natural resources, launched an invasion

of Russia. Such a drastic change in Nazi policy altered the dynamics not only of the war but also

the international system. Again, geography played a role in the outcome of such a decision with

2
far reaching consequences. Hitler’s army was not prepared to encounter one of the most

prominent geographical features of Russia – winter. Ill-equipped, the German soldiers were

caught in freezing temperatures in Russia which also took a toll on their weaponry and morale.

After a series of initial victories, the Russian winter ultimately halted the advance made by the

Nazis (Perry, 1989). More importantly, however, Germany, by engineering an assault against

Russia, made itself geographically more vulnerable since it would since it would mean that the

war would now be fought on many fronts which would overstrain its military and resources

(Kennedy, 1987). On the western front, it would encounter the Western democracies led by the

United States. At the eastern theater, it would face Russia’s Red Army. Therefore, Germany

overstepped on its geographical boundaries which resulted not only the defeat of the Axis powers

but also sounded the death knell of the multipolar world which was supplanted by a bipolar

international system dominated by the United States and Russia.

In summary, geography, which dictates the limitations on the mobility of states, shapes

the arrangement of the interaction of states or in the international system. This is not to suggest,

however, that human agency would no longer play a role in the international system. To the

contrary, human agency may sometimes overcome such geographic imposition in the face of

massive technology. Napoleon and Hitler were two leaders who were able to overcome the

geographical border of Europe in order to expand their empires. Ironically the same geographical

features – mountainous terrain, a relatively differentiated climate, among others – caused Europe

to be politically fragmented which, in turn, made the different states naturally vehement against

the idea of being subjugated by any dominating power (Kennedy, 1987). Thus, before the Cold

War, a multipolar system was – for decades – kept in place, albeit sometimes rocked by wars,

because of geography.

3
 References

Buzan, B. & Little, R. (2000). International Systems in World History: Remaking the Study of

International Relations. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Kaplan, R. (2012). The Revenge of Geography: What the Map Tells us About the Coming

Conflicts and the Battle against Fate. New York, NY: Random House.

Kennedy, P. (1987). The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers: Economic Change and Military

Conflict from 1500 to 2000. New York, NY: Vintage Books.

Perry, M. (1989). A History of the World. (Rev. ed). Philippines: Houghton Mifflin Company