Index > ANBOUND Geopolitical Review (AGR)
Back
Monday, July 25, 2022
On Spatial Advancement in Geopolitics
Kung Chan

(Note: While not every reader would have a full understanding of this article, it is still comprehensible to all. This is a professional article as it involves complex thoughts. At the same time, it also aims at a more popular audience because everyone can attempt to understand its accuracy. The only thing that needs to be explained in advance is that the "new space theory" is a geopolitical analysis theory proposed and constructed by Kung Chan several years ago, and the article is a reiteration of that.)

The ongoing war in Ukraine has subverted the world's understanding of geopolitics to a certain extent. Conventional geopolitics appears to be unable to explain the phenomena and problems that emerged along with the war. These would include the most fundamental issues like the dichotomy of enemies and friends, as well as camps and borders. Although many scholars are still working hard to locate explanations in past classic concepts and theories with the hope to lay the foundation for future geostrategies, such an effort seems to bring rather limited results.

What can really provide support for future geostrategies is the "new space theory" of geopolitics. This of course is not a new theory, but a technical analysis framework concept that ANBOUND proposed a few years ago to explain the current world and define future challenges.

As its name indicates, new space theory focuses on defining and constructing the objective world through space, boundary, structure, and equilibrium, so as to carry out objective, supra-ideological evaluation and analysis. Under such a perspective, geopolitics is seen as a political and strategic game of space, boundary, structure, and equilibrium. All changes, conflicts, and even wars are reactions arising from it.

New space theory is an application of system theory in geopolitics. Space is system, and system is space. As space possesses boundaries and structure, naturally structural equilibrium problems and challenges will appear along with it. In fact, all geopolitical challenges emerge out of and are exacerbated by it. The loss of balance in the equilibrium, in turn, will result in turbulent social and national boundaries, in addition to geopolitical risks. This has given the opportunities for national or community-centered political thoughts to cause the deterioration of economic competition. Ethnic conflicts will then escalate and become the cause of discords. More importantly, spaces also evolve, expanding or shrinking, which is often the beginning of wars and conflicts.

Although it is difficult to understand, the concepts of "space", "boundary", "structure", and "equilibrium" should be defined. These are the main concepts and part of the uniform analytical language of new space theory, which objectify the geopolitical trend of the world and construct a supra-objective meta-picture. The system enables scientific and objective measurement, evaluation, tracking, as well as observation and prediction, comparable to that of the weather forecasting system. An important change arising from this is that it is able to transcend conventional geopolitics biased toward theoretical significance, go beyond academic dogmatism dominated by a few pundits, and establish a meaningful, objective world led by analysts and can be included in timeline analysis.

The real world is a dangerous place. Just a few months ago, who would have thought that there would be a terrible war right in Europe, the paradigm of civilization? The new space theory, born out of analytical practice, appears at the right time. In the modern world, space has been greatly expanded, but it has also brought many unexpected and major risks. In addition to the physical ones, there is also the space and boundary of the virtual world. With this change, the perpetual contradictions and conflicts in the world have been greatly inflated. Foreseeably, the world in the future will be less peaceful and more competitive than before, and variegated forms of conflicts will be ubiquitous.

Are the concepts and theories of the new space theory too commonplace? Perhaps we can look at the possibilities of the changes below:

After World War II, the United States has always been proud of its global strategy, and this has more or less become the mainstream belief there. However, it is observable that the U.S. is now paying more attention to its Asia-Pacific Strategy, otherwise known as Indo-Pacific Strategy, rather than focusing on the world as a whole. If there is a next step, the U.S. might no longer refer to such a move as the "Asia-Pacific Strategy", but rather just "Pacific Strategy". The U.S. strategic planning horizon is shrinking, and indeed approaching the Hawaiian frontline before the Pacific War began.

Like it or not, this is the signal that the objective system shows.

The same is true in the evolution of globalization. In the beginning, the concept of globalization was considered to be something solemn and sacred, and many authoritative international trade organizations were founded because of this. In the most luxurious hotels of the world's major economic countries, well-dressed economists and entrepreneurs could often be seen talking about the grand vision of globalization, while classics in support of it became textbooks in universities, the very source of the salaries of many academics.

It did not take long for such a boom to be hit by structural changes. Multilateral organizations, including the World Trade Organization, have teetered in the tide of trade conflicts, losing their utility and voice, and now no one would be naive enough to take the WTO seriously. Instead, regional organizations have emerged, and more bilateral agreements will be seen in the future. These changes in trade space are caused by structure (a domain qualifier can be added in front of the term 'space' if needed) itself.

Is the European Union a good paradigm in this regard? That was what many thought in the past. The EU was, in fact, considered to be a crucial component of modern civilization. Yet, if this is true, then why is there Brexit? Could it be that Britain, which has always been self-righteous, is trying to break away from civilization and move toward barbarism? Of course not. The war in Ukraine has clearly shown that war has erupted on European soil, yet Britain is far away from it and can do what it wants without having to be like the EU countries that are being pressured by the differences between reality and morality. Britain, as things stand, is free from being entangled in arguments over the issue of sanctions, unlike the EU countries.

Then there is the weaponization of Japan and the rise that China and Russia seek. Japan's weaponization has long been a manifestation of "the rise of Japan", which is something that has not changed. In the case of Russia, Vladimir Putin's weaponization of energy is also a long-standing geopolitical practice. From the perspective of new space theory, this is the reorganization and construction of the space of world order. The driving force behind this construction, whether active or passive, is clearly the United States.

Are American policymakers surprised by these situations? Perhaps they are. However, this is simply the result of the staleness of their geopolitical thoughts.

All of these occurrences are completely in line with the logic of spatial developments, but they have been ignored for a long time. "Japan's rise", for instance, does not exist in a vacuum today. It has existed and developed since the publication of the book "The Japan That Can Say No". China's nationalism is also a kind of reverse movement of its reform and opening up. It exists since the beginning of the reform and has been developing all the time. When China needs a new international position, and the world to treat it as an equal, changes are bound to happen. Unfortunately, this has also made a huge difference in the world.

Did conventional geopolitical theories foresee and explain all these changes? Have the strategic policies of countries around the world responded to them? Obviously, aside from rhetoric, the answer is a resounding "no". In contrast, all these changes are entirely within the scope of the new space theory, where they are to a certain extent "observable", "traceable", and "predictable", like ANBOUND's forecast of Brexit.

Assessing and defining classics have always been a major theme in research. However, it should be pointed out that, rather than speculations and inferences, it is the new space theory that can actually provide the dynamic logic factors in the evaluations and commentaries of the current events. Undoubtedly, this is a significant objective progress in explaining and understanding today's world.

From a positivist point of view, when these conventional geopolitical theories can "explain" but cannot successfully foresee the changes, then their "explanations" would be flawed. All things considered, it is hoped that new space theory can correct this theoretical disconnect to a certain extent, so that interpretation and reality can be reintegrated into a verifiable objective whole.

ANBOUND
Copyright © 2012-2024 ANBOUND