Aligning Geopolitics, Humanitarian Action and Geography in Times of Conflict

This chapter assesses the geography and politics nexus as embodied in geopolitics and appraises conflict and its resolution, war and peace. The place, space and time geopolitical frameworks for analyses, geographical scales and places and their interconnections are reviewed. Geopolitical approaches spanning the range from traditional schools of thought to critical geopolitics are referenced. Territory disputed can range from a few square meters regarding areas on Jerusalem’s Temple Mount, to thousands of square kilometres as with power standoffs in the South China Sea. Borders, boundaries and polity are expressed in multi-faceted ways as exemplified by walls, public squares and symbolic places. Analyses of interactions between territory and people in place and time contexts is imperative for sustainable planning and positive action to take place. Territoriality and territorialisation are fundamental concepts linked to location—indicated by natural, human and political geographical coordinates. The plotting of maps, GIS and Big Data are vital for the humanitarian community, as is awareness of the sources, selection of data types, and intended images.

This chapter evaluates geopolitical inter-relationships between physical and human geography and political-economy, its impact on organization within and between states, and how this effects international politics, law, trade and transnational relations. Each conflict is located in a specific place with its unique geographical characteristics, and in time—including the long-time calendar of geology determining location of resources such as water and minerals, to the long-time periods of social history that imprint on the territory. This is juxtaposed with recent histories and current events. Territoriality relates to a sense of ownership or sovereignty entailing a mosaic of polities and sovereignty with associated visible and invisible boundaries. It seeks control over resources, people and defence of identity and culture. Territorialisation denotes a strategy for direct or indirect territorial control and sometimes enlargement of that space. In this context concepts of ethnicity and culture, the state, nation and nationalism are appraised.

While there is a myriad of causes for conflict, here two broad categories are used: (i) Material—essentially economic resources consisting of territory, fertile land, water, oil and gas, and all types of natural and human assets. In short, they are tangible in contrast to ideas—constructs of the mind or spirit. (ii) Existential reasons relate to affirming one’s existence, feeling a sense of one’s own time and space—philosophical concepts and social constructions that attempt to give life a purpose or meaning that has been a major motor in the development of societies and civilizations, but often causing conflict. Utopian ideals have contributed to religions and nationalisms, but when pushed to extremes have fostered totalitarianism and dystopias, and when they clash major conflicts can ensue as witnessed in the Syrian Civil War. Democracy itself is a Utopian ideal, a work in progress as witnessed on global scales with UN agencies, and at much smaller levels with regional and local planning within and between states.

Many observers postulated that we were in a post-ideological age especially from the 1970s on. This may be true in the context of doctrinaire Marxism or Christianity. However, ordinary people are viewing ideology on different levels, albeit without using the term, and looking for credible dynamic leaders to bring change as witnessed especially with the rise in populisms. Diversity of contested ideas, conflicts and geographical scales makes analysis additionally complex. Whether due to local and regional planning in mature democracies, or that regarding the MENA countries, Kosovo, Venezuela, South Sudan or Myanmar, the common factor is power relationships, and balances of fear and influence in specific places. Hence the solution is habitually the least unjust response. If hostilities are put down by force, then the long-term reasons for conflict remain and will eventually resurface. All conflict does not necessarily lead to violence as proven by democratic consensuses reached in many jurisdictions, including traditional conflict resolution methods as found throughout Africa and Asia in contrast to the highly adversarial and litigious culture often associated with America. Disputes exist within and between democratic states, war does not.

Humanitarian action is reviewed including creation of the League of Nations and United Nations Organisation following the World Wars and ensuing geopolitical world orders. Between 1945 and 91, humanitarian action and law remained circumscribed by the geopolitical parameters of the Cold War. With implosion of the Soviet system (1991–2003), there was greater hope for people-centred humanitarian mechanisms, as in the UN Responsibility to Protect Principle (R2P) promoting a citizen, people-centred sovereignty and establishment of the International Criminal Court (ICC). The 2001, 9/11 attacks on the USA and War on Terror critically impacted on the humanitarian landscape. Hyper-globalization created greater tensions between UN inter-state actions within the UN, and attempted misuse of the R2P. The perceived corporatization of humanitarian aid, along with mission creep and role confusion, were compounded by the War on Terror. This created defies for the humanitarian community, with workers on the ground being targeted by belligerents. The limited success of pacification and democracy-building in Afghanistan (2001 on) and Iraq (2003 on) contributed to further destabilization, and increase in jihadism. The 2007 economic crash, and global institutional mantra of Western-style democracy, neo-liberal economics, and austerity left many people vulnerable and disaffected. Nonetheless, the imperative of humanitarianism, impartiality, neutrality and independence remains central to humanitarian organizations where the Hippocratic standpoint of ‘do not harm’ is embedded. That has to be juxtaposed with the nexus of hazard, vulnerability and risk, depending on interplay of geographies and geopolitics in natural, human-made, technological and complex emergency situations.

Humanitarian crises contribute to underdevelopment, while conflict has a devastating impact on societies in terms of suffering, death and economic damage. This is evident particularly in social institutions that are required to play roles in sustainable development. Conflict leads to greater underdevelopment contributing further to vulnerability and risk, and recurring negative cycles. Humanitarian action is mandated to support the sustainable development. Regarding power and vulnerability, the food-weapon is assessed. Local and national capacity building and empowerment is reviewed during and after crises in order to consolidate the development process. In the overall vision for a sustainable world, and nexus between food, power and hunger, the Global Hunger Index (GHI) remains vital in tracking hunger at different scales throughout the world. The UN Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) has long raised awareness of the link between conflict and hunger, and the food weapon. They and the EU and partners, provides updates on food security to the UN Security Council and annually publishes the Global Report on Food Crises, a crucial source for the humanitarian community. Adverse physical geographical and ecological conditions challenge the development momentum, and the struggle with credible nation-state building continues, especially in the Global South due to lack of good governance and democracy in many cases.

The nexus between political-economy, development and discourses, bottom-up people’s needs and power of institutions such as the World Bank and IMF all comes into play here in the geopolitical analyses. Based on historical experiences and Utopian ideals, concepts regarding development are codified in the UN Sustainable Development Goals. The quest of assuring human needs entails elimination of hunger and poverty, and guaranteeing good health services and well-being, along with quality education and gender equality, clean water and sanitation, affordable clean energy, decent work and economic growth, with industry, innovation and infrastructure, and reducing inequalities, as well as creation of sustainable cities and communities. Along with this is the issue of responsible consumption and production, with action taken on climate change, policies and use of water and land environments. Central to this is peace, justice and strong institutions, with durable partnerships to implement sustainability. Basically, it can be argued that any action that does not alleviate poverty in some way cannot be called development but defining poverty has to be addressed in specific contexts. Conflicts remain the biggest threat to development and hence a human rights approach is imperative. Key development ideas must be linked to wider conceptual frameworks of globalisation and glocalization, and democratisation processes. Economic institutions such as the IMF and World Bank, WTO and economic governance all form part of the development interconnection.

The rise and impact of international organizations is appraised here. Following WWII, there was demand for international collaboration, regulation and rule of law, creation of inter-governmental organizations such as the UN, and inter-regional organizations like the EEC/EU. Instruments including the Geneva Conventions and protocols were further elaborated. Responding to demands, there was a burgeoning in NGOs. From the 1990s on there has been much support for the UN Responsibility to Protect (R2P), but also challenges faced by citizens whose governments cannot, or will not, or refuse to protect them. Nonetheless, there are many criticisms of the R2P. According to the UNHCR, there were over 68.5 million people—refugees, asylum seekers or internally displaced across the globe in 2017. Economic gaps within and between countries have increased. Distances between IGOs responsible for global regulation and national governments, and people on the ground have increased, fuelling conflict over material resources, but existentialist crises also. Challenges continue for peacebuilding and post-conflict recovery, creation of sustainable peace processes, and truth and reconciliation work in former conflict territories. There is no turning back the clock on the digital revolution and globalization, which by its nature entails migration and refugees. Conflictual perspectives on this have been witnessed by electorates in the EU and USA, and in territories where actors are trying to manage humanitarian crises.

In Part 1, geopolitics emphasizes territory, power, time, place and space regarding conflict and its resolution in geographical contexts. Concepts surrounding territoriality, resource control, defence and identity are assessed where the state continues to act as the framework for the UN and humanitarian law, despite globalizations. Defining and positively channelling nationalism remains challenging while territorialisation quests continue on planet earth, but also in outer space and possible future cyberwars. Conflict entails material and existential variables including Utopias, religion, development and democracy. The Democracy and UN HDI indices, shows strong correlations between conflict, crises and coping capacities. Kernel to development objectives are justice, human rights, endowment, entitlement and peace-building. Multiple causes exist for regional conflicts that can become radicalized. For sustainable development, planning with good governance supporting good citizenship is imperative, interconnecting central to local government and wider scales. In Part 2, humanitarian action and development contexts are appraised. Contexts, events and processes are core to global geopolitical orders and attempts at international governance, with humanitarian NGOs promoting action based on impartiality, neutrality and independence. The UN Responsibility to Protect has made progress in shifting the focus of international law to a more people-centred approach, keeping in mind hazards and risks. The impact of any disaster is proportional to the population’s vulnerability levels and responses include multiple stakeholders aiming to support sustainable development. But the triad—food, power and hunger remains embedded in political-economy. A back to basics approach, encompassing food and health, money and work, environment and good governance must be kept to the forefront as attempted in the Sustainable Development Goals (2016–2030). In Part 3, the nexus between geopolitics, international organization and humanitarism is appraised. This needs to be interpreted within the realpolitik of the global geopolitical environment of 1945, and original architecture of the UN—General Assembly and Security Council, with the latter including the five WWII victors holding veto powers, and effects of this during the Cold War (1947–91). Yet, humanitarian breakthroughs came with the Geneva Conventions, R2P and International Criminal Court. From the 55 original UN member states in 1945, this increased to 193 by 2011, and reforms in UN power structures urgently need to reflect this. Such is particularly evident in disjuncture between UN ideals and capacity to deliver, in contrast to the realpolitik being played out in Ukraine and Crimea (2014 on), Syria (2015 on), Yemen (2015 on), DRC and Myanmar. UN agencies play a foremost role in humanitarian action, but the key players are NGOs and IFRC. Other significant examples of inter-governmental organizations include the Council of Europe, Europe Union, Organization of American States, African Union, Arab League and Organization of Islamic Cooperation. For the present, multilateralism remains the best deterrent to unbridled unilateral state action and its inherent dangers.

Individual autonomous and group learning is encouraged helping the reader to reflect on the ideas and themes that have been covered. The reader can dip in and out of the different activities covered in Parts 1, 2 and 3 of Aligning geopolitics, humanitarian action and geography in times of conflict.