9/11 AND THE HEARTLAND DEBATE IN CENTRAL ASIA

Anita SENGUPTA

---

Anita Sengupta, D.Sc. (Political Science), Fellow at the Maulana Abul Kalam Azad Institute of Asian Studies (Kolkata, India)

---

The “Romance” of the Heartland

When five independent states emerged in the Central Asian region, in the immediate aftermath of the disintegration of the Soviet Union, what also emerged, more or less simultaneously, was a focus on certain geopolitical concepts and constructs that had become defunct in the immediate past. One such concept that became popular was that of the “new great game,” to define the competition for influence, power, hegemony and profits that would now be played out over the “Heartland.” It was emphasized that while the original “Great Game” had been about territorial control, the new game was primarily about control over the resources of the Heartland and only secondarily about the strategic geopolitical position of the region. This became an integral part of a vast literature and coincided with a revival of interest in and use of geopolitics as a tool for politico-security analysis.

This focus intensified in the post 9/11 scenario when it was argued that control over this region, the crucial “Heartland” of the “World-Island,” would be critical in determining the emerging balance of influence in the context of a vastly changed world order. The assumption, particularly in the post 9/11 scenario, was that Sir Halford Mackinder’s “World-Island” would once again be central to both U.S. and Russian foreign policy. Strategic analysts returned to the theory of the “Heartland” that had envisioned Russian control over the Eurasian landmass as the “pivot of world politics” and the implications of this for other states. However, it would be incorrect to interpret this focus on the Heartland as geographical determinism. Geographical determinism ignores one of……….

---

Please fill subscription form to obtain full text of this jounal