GEOPOLITICA ROMANIEI

Interesul intelectual in geopolitica globala si cea regionala l-am avut inca de pe bancile facultatii. Dezinteresul, chiar ostilitatea autoritatilor comuniste, pentru aceasta disciplina stiintifica - care a fost profund discreditata de geopoliticianul german Karl Haushofer, inspirator al politicilor expansioniste naziste - m-au impiedicat insa pana in anii '90 sa revin si sa aprofundez demersurile mele initiale.

In ultimele doua decenii ale secolului trecut, geopolitica a revenit insa in forta in prim-planul demersurilor intelectuale care incearca sa explice modificarile teritoriale aparute pe harta lumii, aparitia de noi state sau cauzele conflictelor etnice sau religioase care insangereaza inca zone intregi ale globului.

Revenit in tara dupa 1989, m-am preocupat intens timp de cativa ani de problemele economice, institutionale si intr-o mai mica masura politice din Romania post-decembrista. Aceste eforturi au culminat cu elaborarea unui eseu dedicat geopoliticii Romaniei, “Romania in mileniul III”, care a fost prezentat in toamna lui 1995 in cadrul unei mese rotunde organizate cu guvernul Romaniei de catre revista The Economist din Londra, si publicat in presa romaneasca in noiembrie al aceluiasi an de ziarul “Ziua”.

Eseul avea la baza doua idei forta . Prima se referea la faptul ca din punct de vedere geopolitic mentinerea actualei capitale la Bucuresti era o mostenire anacronica din perioada Vechiului Regat, aranjamentul ideal pentru un stat cu forma geometrica a Romaniei impunand in mod firesc mutarea capitalei in centrul tarii, adica in Transilvania. Asa cum se poate constata din lectura pasajului urmator apartinand fondatorului geopoliticii americane Nicholas Spykman, forma Vechiului Regat prezenta serioase dezavantaje, teritoriul sau fiind lung si ingust. Forma teritoriului este in principal responsabila pentru desprinderea unor teritorii ca Bucovina si Nordul Ardealului din trupul tarii sau aparitia statului Moldova si numai in al doilea rand Pactul Ribbentrop-Molotov, care nu a facut altceva decat sa exploateze lipsa de prevedere a guvernantilor romani care dupa Marea Unire nu au mutat imediat capitala intr-o pozitie centrala ce le-ar fi permis o mai buna administrare a tarii si strangerea legaturilor cu zonele periferice ale statului reintregit:

“Este evident ca forma ideala a teritoriului unui stat este cea a unui cerc perfect. Intr-o asemenea configuratie, cea mai mare suprafata posibila ar fi inclusa in interiorul frontierelor cele mai scurte, facilitand apararea acestora, iar toate zonele ar fi echidistante si s-ar afla cat mai aproape posibil de un guvern pozitionat in centrul cercului. Statele care sunt inguste si lungi ca forma - si asta este mai ales situatia puterilor terestre - au tendinta inevitabila sa se dezintegreze, fie pierzand teritorii la periferie unde influenta centralizatoare a guvernului se face cel mai putin simtita, fie prin desprinderea unor teritorii si reaparitia acestora sub forma unor state separate.” (Nicholas Spykman, Geography and Foreign Policy, 1938, p.34)

A doua idee forta era aceea a reorganizarii statului roman sub forma unui stat federal, care ar fi atenuat tensiunile existente dintre diferitele regiuni istorice ale tarii. Adoptarea formulei statului national unitar dupa 1921 nu a reusit sa previna doua decenii mai tarziu importante pierderi teritoriale la periferia statului roman.

Din nefericire, imperativele geografice care ar fi trebuit luate in seama cu prioritate de politicienii romani au fost, din nou, ignorate cu desavarsire. In goana dupa imbogatire rapida, alesii nostri au renuntat sa se preocupe in vreun fel de viitorul tarii, fiind obsedati numai de viitorul financiar al propriilor familii.

Daca se doreste insa supravietuirea pe termen lung a statului roman – lucru de care am ajuns sa ma indoiesc in ultima vreme – orice reorganizare administrativ-teritoriala a Romaniei trebuie sa aiba ca prioritate zero mutarea capitalei tarii in centrul acesteia. Procedand altfel, Romania va ramane in continuare expusa pericolelor separatismului, iredentismului si proastelor legaturi administrative dintre centru si teritoriile periferice ale tarii.

Doresc sa inchei postul cu un al doilea citat din Spykman, pe care il dedic politicienilor romani afectati de analfabetism geopolitic, sau a celor consiliati de “geopoliticieni de ziua a 7-a”:

“(...) aria geografica a unui stat este baza teritoriala de unde statul opereaza pe timp de razboi, si pozitia strategica pe care o ocupa pe timpul armistitiului provizoriu pe care noi il numim pace. Acesta este factorul care conditioneaza in mod fundamental formularea politicilor statului din cauza ca este cel mai permanent. Ministrii vin si pleaca, chiar si dictatorii mor, dar muntii raman de neclintit.” (Nicholas Spykman, Geography and Foreign Policy, 1938, p.29)

CLUELESS IN LONDON

Have we entered the “age of migration” ?

Are China and India “migration superpowers” ?

Have you heard of M-7 ?

All these astounding concepts have been recently minted by Mark Leonard, Director of the London-based European Council on Foreign Relations, in a Project Syndicate article.

Comment Florian Pantazi APR 21, 2016:

Mark Leonard heads a London-based think tank which tries to emulate the much more successful American model headed by Richard Haas, the Council on Foreign Relations, whose influence is real indeed. Mr Leonard is also familiar with my blog, "Spotlight on Geopolitics" hosted by the Brussels-based Blogactiv platform.

As a Toulouse-trained specialist in IR & geopolitics, I have arrived at the conclusion that what we are currently witnessing is the end of the era of globalization:
"virtually all of today’s armed conflicts – in Ukraine, Libya, Syria, Iraq or Yemen – have geopolitics as a common denominator. Even ISIS has a clearcut geopolitical agenda of sorts, namely that of establishing an “Islamic caliphate” in territories snatched from war-torn Syria and Iraq. Taken together, these tensions and conflicts among ethnic, religious or military blocs have brought to an untimely end the era of globalization and ushered in the Age of Geopolitics."("EU in the Age of Geopolitics", Jan 4,2016, http://florianpantazi.blogactiv.eu)

In my view, given the current pressure on his shoulders, M. Leonard (N.B.-link below) was trying to come up with what the French call "une grille de lecture" that could be instrumental in interpreting current developments, of which Syrian or Afghan migrations are but a small part. Naturally, in reality such migrations are the effects and not the cause of the crisis. As such, the thesis proposed by Leonard is unscientific. His "migration superpowers" do not in fact exist.

The Chinese and the Indian diasporas, for example, might appear large but as a percentage of their total populations, they are not. (The 20 million members of the Indian diaspora, for example, represent less than 3% of the total population of India. Much smaller EU nations, such as Romania, have 20% of its population living or working abroad : does this make Romania a “migration power”, overlooked by Mark Leonard ? )

During the modern era, the most successful and accomplished "migration superpowers" have been Portugal and Spain, as well as Great Britain and France. Taken together, these European nations are responsible for sending immigrants in their millions and colonizing entire continents in the New World or in North Africa. As a percentage of the home countries' populations, the migrants represented a much more consequential movement of people around the world than anything we are witnessing today. Still, to my knowledge, no historian in his right mind would have labeled that period in world history "the age of migration", but refer to it instead as the period of European world-wide expansionism. To date, I haven't heard of the Chinese, the Indians, the Kurds, the Syrians and what-have-you leaving their habitat to create new countries or settle deserted areas of the world :)

Florian Pantazi APR 21, 2016

Mr Leonard's "age of migration" thesis is, unfortunately, a total fiasco. To substantiate it, he mixes vastly different types of population movements around the world: Chinese expats working on Chinese-financed projects in Africa and elsewhere, India's economic migrants in search of opportunity, Kurds fleeing political opression in Turkey and finally, refugees from war-torn areas of the world affected by geopolitical-type conflicts (ethnic and/or religious groups fighting each other for the control of a given territory like in Syria or Libya).

For a global population of some 7 billion, the 240 million people of various nationalities living or working outside their country of origin represents roughly 3,4 percent. In other words, although global movements of people might seem impressive, the overwhelming majority of the world's population continues to live and work in their home countries.

Furthermore, by throwing Israel and ISIS into the mix, the author succeeds in muddling the issue of global migration completely. In short, I have seldom seen on Project Syndicate a more unscientific approach to analyzing a global trend, one that makes a mockery of the readers' intelligence. Consequently, the so-called "age of migration" thesis is plainly a wrong interpretation of today's developments. 

 Florian Pantazi APR 21, 2016

P.S.- I would kindly like to remind Project Syndicate readers that, in world history, there was only one "Age of Migration" - between the 5th and the 10th centuries. After the fall of the Roman Empire, ethnic groups in their entirety (from the Avars and Visigoths to the Huns, Slavs,Magyars, and so on) moved from Asia to Europe, where they mixed with local populations and gave rise to today's European nations. It is highly doubtful that an event of a similar magnitude is currently underway or that it will happen again in the foreseeable future. I do wonder, however, who Mr. Leonard's high school history teacher was :) 

Comment Petey Bee APR 21, 2016

+1

Comment Steve Hurst APR 21, 2016

The food sector is notorious for covering a dish in mayonnaise to obscure what is being served up. In this case with the dish Mr Leonard is providing for our delectation when the mayonnaise is scrapped away there is only more mayonnaise and the dish should be returned to the kitchen forthwith. Seldom have I been asked to consume anything more vacuous. The idea Mr Leonard is in any policy position other than... READ MORE

https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/immigration-refugees-geopolitical-boon-by-mark-leonard-2016-04

When it comes to such intellectual performances, Professor Dimitri Kitsikis - the uncontested dean of global geopolitics - said it best:

“Dès la chute du camp socialiste, après 1989, la géopolitique est redevenue à la mode,à tel point que dans les médias et le grand public, bien des gens se prétendirent spécialistes de géopolitique et que le mot circula, sans connaissance de son sens véritable.”