Revisiting the ‘pivot’: the influence of Halford Mackinder on analysis of Uzbekistan's international relations

Abstract

Since the end of the Soviet Union, many foreign policy intellectuals have peculiarly identified the Republic of Uzbekistan as the locus of Mackinder's 1904 'pivot' designation. A century on from his original 'Geographical pivot of history' lecture, this paper examines the work of a Russian, an Uzbek, and an American who use Mackinder to understand contemporary Uzbekistani geopolitical orientations, in particular with reference to the USA. Drawing on critical work on the history of geopolitics, it highlights that whilst these texts claim objectivity, they betray political and subjective foreign policy choices. It suggests that whilst the revival of interest in Mackinder testifies to the continued attraction of his ideas, this has, with rare exceptions, been based upon a superficial reading of both his work and the body of secondary literature, and that this raises both disciplinary and ethical concerns.

Ups and Downs in Foreign Policy of Uzbekistan towards Security Approach of Russia*

“…Since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, many foreign policy intellectuals have cogitated that Uzbekistan has a key role in the Central Asia geopolitics. For example, Mackinder referred to it in 1904 as a "geographical pivot" (Megoran 2004). Uzbekistan with almost 30 million people has the largest population in Central Asia.…”

Professionals of Geopolitics: Agency in International Politics

“…Local experts – the intellectuals of statecraft outside the power centres – do not simply bear witness to dominant geopolitical discourses; they also appropriate these discourses for their own purposes. For example, the work of Mackinder or Huntington has been utilized for particular nationalist goals in a variety of contexts (for examples, see Bialasiewicz 2006; Ingram 2001; Kuus 2007; Megoran 2004). What functions as state‐of‐the‐art geopolitical thinking in various social contexts has as much to do with such appropriation as it does with the original content of the objects of appropriation.…”

“…There is a great deal of work on the geopolitical traditions of different countries: especially Britain, Germany, France and Russia (Bassin 2003;Dodds and Atkinson 2000;Hepple 2000;Ingram 2001;O'Loughlin et al 2005). The geopolitical thought of other countries often emerged in relation to and in debate with the classical balance of power politics in Europe (Kuus 2004;Megoran 2006;Moisio 2006;Sidaway and Power 2005; for edited books with the best geographical coverage, see Dodds and Atkinson 2000;O'Tuathail and Dalby 1998;O'Tuathail et al 2006).…”

“…participant observation) are rarely utilized in geography, and when they are used, they concentrate on small groups relatively low in power structures (e.g. Megoran 2006;Mountz 2004). Exceptions, such as Iver Neumann's (2002; fascinating studies of the upper levels of the Norwegian Foreign Ministry, remain exceptional -in part because Neumann's position as a semi-insider in the small circles of Norwegian foreign policy professionals cannot be replicated by others.…”

Re-centering Central Asia: China’s “New Great Game” in the old Eurasian Heartland

“…The extension of China's overland influence over larger territories to its west also gives more credence to Spykman's alternative conception of the Rimland including China as a partial sea power. To enrich the continued debate about the theoretical legacy of Mackinder one century later (Megoran, 2004), China's key role in re-centering Central Asia injects a bevy of timely evidence and insight for understanding the complex realities surrounding an ancient land today. It sensitizes us to re-evaluate both the connected and blurred boundaries between: (a) geopolitical and geoeconomic imperatives; (b) the rise of and pivot to China and the relative decline of old Eurasian powers like Britain and Russia (Hopkirk, 1992); (c) domestic economic growth and external development strategy; and (d) the uneven autonomous role of key cities vs. the general weakening of the nation-state (Chen, 2005;Chen and Stone, 2017).…”