Download the book here.
Geopolitics has traditionally been the study of the relationship and links between political power and geographic space. The doctrine of Geopolitics gained attention largely through the work of Sir Halford Mackinder in England and his formulation of the Heartland Theory in 1904, which in reference to the British Empire at the time explored the significance of sea power in world conflict.
Whilst politics looks at the application of power, geopolitics looks at power in relation to geography and resources. The Western world has dominated the geopolitical scene for the past three centuries and has fought many wars over resources with each other. It was the British Empire's supremacy at sea that gave it superpower status. Its control of the seas through concentrating on navel development allowed it to conquer key sea trade routes and project its power across the oceans. It was its navel power that allowed it to conquer large parts of the world. Napoleon attempted to challenge British supremacy and was eventually defeated at the battle of waterloo in 1815.
Germany revolutionised the global geopolitical scene in the late 19th century by developing submarines and railways, allowing her to challenge the British Empire in the form of World War 1. Allied victory saw Britain and France distribute the spoils amongst themselves including the emergence of the key to global geopolitical supremacy - oil. Within 25 years Germany resurfaced bigger, bolder and bloodier with state of the art rockets that would propel missiles and lead to the development of airplanes and fighter jets and another attempt to shift the global balance of power - World War 2. However, it was the US that emerged as the world's superpower after World War 2 and this ushered in the era of economic competition and nuclear and energy development. The ability to harness resources through the development of technology has led the US to achieve full spectrum dominance, where an aura of invincibility surrounds her.
The dominance of the Capitalist West has been aided through the use of propaganda in order to create an image of supremacy; at the same time a number of myths alongside a number of narratives were fashioned in order to hide internal problems and weaknesses. An unfortunate result of this has also been the fact that many people across the world were duped by the supposed superiority of the West and Capitalism. This has made it difficult for many to see through the artificial bubble the West has created which allowed it to stand tall, needing only a strong wind for it to collapse.
It is for this very reason this book has been written. As Muslims we should be acquainted with the global situation for not only is this necessary for the defence of the Ummah and Islam, it also exposes the weakness of the Capitalist West. It should also be borne in mind that Geopolitics is important because most wars are fought over resources as President Woodrow Wilson said in 1919: ‘Is there any man, is there any woman, let me say any child here that does not know that the seed of war in the modern world is industrial and commercial rivalry?'
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Habibti, Russia
said:
 |
Assalamu aleykum. It's high time for discussions among muslims and pro-capitalistic peole. Please, brothers and sisters, don't sleep? use everything u have, use this book and others, for example, " Towards a Tranquil Safe World under the Shade of the Economic System of Islam", to open eyes of your opponents with the help of facts. Someone must wait for translation, because don't know English or Arabic, u have a possibility right now. Tthere is some minuses in this books, in quotes no references to sources. It's a pity. |
|
report abuse
vote down
vote up
|
Habib ath-Thabrani
said:
 |
Laa izzata Ila bil Islam, Wa laa Islam ilaa bi Syari'ah, wa Laa Syari'ah Ilaa bi Daulah Khilafah Ala Min Hajin Nubuwwah. On Our Way!! Allahu Akbar forYou!! |
|
report abuse
vote down
vote up
|
Zeital
said:
 |
“North America speaks English”. Attributed to Chancellor Bismarck in 1898 “We must act and state our case in such a way to retain American sympathy at all times”. Robert Vansittart, 1936 “The oversetting of the balance of power in favour of the pivot state, resulting in its expansion over the marginal lands of Euro-Asia, would permit of the use of vast continental resources for fleet building, and the empire of the world would then be in sight. This might happen if Germany was to ally herself with Russia”. Sir Halford Mackinder, 1900 “An ambassador is an honest man sent abroad to lie for his country”. Sir Henry Wotton (1568 – 1639) “We simply are Central Europe and it is quite natural that other and smaller nations tend towards us. To this the British object because it absolutely knocks to pieces their theory of the Balance of Power, i.e. their desire to play off one European power against another at their own pleasure, and because it will lead to the establishment of a united continent”. Kaiser Wilhelm II “Ever since Germany became the politically and economically strongest Continental power, did England feel threatened from Germany more than from any other land in its global economic position and its naval supremacy. Since that point, the English-German differences were unbridgeable, and susceptible to no agreement in any single questions”. Karl Helfferich, 1918 “The only condition which could lead to improvement of German-English relations would be if we bridled our economic development, and this is not possible”. Chancellor Bismarck, 1897 “Why, my fellow citizens, is there any man here, or any woman - let me say, is there any child here - who does not know that the seed of war in the modern world is industrial and commercial rivalry? ...This war, in its inception, was a commercial and industrial war. It was not a political war”. President Woodrow Wilson |
|
report abuse
vote down
vote up
|
Zeital
said:
|
I had enjoyed reading this book discussing Geopolitical Myths, and anticipate some more publications detailing with historical analysis and current affairs. On this same subject area here is some more background information gauged from various sources dealing with causes of modern conflicts due to international rivalry. Prior to the U.S involvement in the Near East (Persia, Arabia, and Caucasus) England and France were vying for influence over Egypt, Syria, and the Arabian Peninsular during those protracted struggles of the late nineteenth century. German attempts at colonisation would further aggravate international tensions, as swathes of Africa was colonised and the besieged Ottomans developed closer ties with Germany. After World War One, England and France added mandates to their empires, but there were increasing rebellions and the Great War, along with previous colonial conflicts took an increasing toll on their economies. Japan (an ally of England during World War One) also profited immensely seizing German colonies in the Pacific and continuing to expand aggressively into China. England enticed the U.S.A into the Near East (as it had tried in World War One), for support in occupying Turkey (remnants of Ottoman State); but the U.S.A would be a rival too. The British used Reza Khan as a puppet for mutually plundering Persia (Iran) via the Anglo-Persian oil company, although the U.S.A was also developing business interests in Persia and Mesopotamia. Britain maintained influence in the Hijaz (replaced by Saudi Arabia), Jordan and Iraq, and had supported Mustafa Kemal (Ataturk) to power. These new regimes were mainly feudal kingdoms established out of the dismembered Ottoman State. However the British and French Empires experienced domestic unrest, sever economic problems, and rebellions across colonies and mandated territories. After World War Two, America recognised the strategic value of the Arabian peninsular regarding it as the 'greatest material prize in history' and engaged in a struggle against the decaying British Empire for influence in those lands. India freed itself from British yoke, but Pakistan would be a loyal NATO/U.S ally especially during the Cold War. Britain attempted to rebuild influence in Persia, Iraq, and Turkey (via Baghdad Pact or the Treaty of London) to compensate for the recent loss of India; however decolonisation had been taking place throughout Africa and Asia (following earlier struggles in the 1920's and before). Britain threatened Iraq via Kuwait in 1950s, but nationalism and bitter uprisings forced Britain out of the Near East. Similarly France was ejected from Algeria and North African possessions. However these nations supported their own despots, and rival oil companies from U.S.A and Britain competed for these spoils. The secret services of both American and Britain supported assassinations of each others puppets. Eventually the U.S.A took centre stage post 1941, but Britain also took the side of America to preserve their own interests in the region (at the expense of the peoples inhabiting the Near East). There were (and still is) also Anglo-American struggles in East Africa back backing rival parties in important countries. However on broader issues, there is also Anglo-American cooperation in encircling Russia and the prior break up of Yugoslavia. |
|
report abuse
vote down
vote up
|
Zeital
said:
|
BRITAIN AND THE COMMONWEALTH The Commonwealth countries that are of interest of those formerly known as the White Dominions which had attained self rule under the British Empire. These are Canada, Australia, and New Zealand (although South Africa was also independent with Afrikaner leadership). These commonwealth countries and their foreign/domestic policies, do indeed support Anglo-American policies globally. Australia and New Zealand were supportive of the Anglo-American sponsored carnage in Indonesia. Australia offered support while Malaya was being played against Indonesia during territorial disputes. Canada lends its support for U.S/N.A.T.O designs against the Russian Federation over claims in the Arctic. More recently Australia (originally a land where British convicts were dumped) and land seized from Aboriginal populations, is now the lead rogue state in Oceanic region. South Africa (settled by Franco-Dutch farmers) was seized over the Boer Wars, pursued British interests in Namibia (then transferred from German South-West Africa as a mandate after World War One). ANGLO – U.S.A RELATIONS The U.S.A is very interesting, because even though the official language is English (even though institutions and settlements were founded by Dutch, Spanish, and French) the U.S.A kept rather way from England and sought a very independent and separate policy. Both nations even clashed in 1812, had boundary disputes, and there was Anglo-French interference during the conduct of the U.S Civil War on behalf of the South seceding. Yet the English seeing the British Empire reeling due to over extension, rebellions/upheavals, domestic issues, and economic problems, feared the rise of the industrial giants of Germany and the U.S.A. The British, French, and Dutch Empires would also have to contend with the vibrant Japanese Empire, ‘seeking a place in the sun’ and eagerly pursuing expansionism of its own. Hence during the latter nineteenth century and especially before outbreak the Great War in 1914, and Hitler's invasion of Poland in 1939, the British did covert activities to influence the ruling U.S establishments. The British saw the U.S.A, (with its energetic growth and raw potential industrial and economic power) as the last recourse to maintaining some semblance of influence across the globe. However after 1941, the U.S.A became the more junior partner in this 'special' relationship. It begs the question what would the likes of President Abraham Lincoln, Henry C. Carey (President Abraham Lincoln’s economist), President Grover, President Jefferson, and even thinkers like Benjamin Franklin make of the U.S.A turning 'full circle' into a 'friendship' with a Britain (as both nations had so different objectives). The U.S.A was more concerned with internal self development and industrialisation rather than getting involved in shoring up waning colonial empires or entanglement in European conflicts. |
|
report abuse
vote down
vote up
|
Fizza Amatullah
said:
 |
Very good book. This is very important to build our awareness and protect us from misleading concepts. |
|
report abuse
vote down
vote up
|
kiran
said:
 |
Assalamu alaikum.i thnk dis book`l help all a lot.it`l help 2 be aware of da preparations of war.may Allah give reward 2 da writer.Allah hafez 2 all bros n sis. |
|
report abuse
vote down
vote up
|
Ali Shah
said:
 |
Thank you very much for share this information and provide more awareness. |
|
report abuse
vote down
vote up
|
fajar_indonesia
said:
 |
Thank you very much for share this valuable book. may Allah give better reward to the author. ameen. |
|
report abuse
vote down
vote up
|
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|