EDITOR’S NOTE: This was run earlier but since it is an original interview conducted for this site we will leave it at the top for several hours. NEWER posts are BELOW so keep scrolling.
A reader, Stuart, sent me a great present a couple of months ago: a book called Why Geography Matters by Harm de Blij. The book had a lot of influence on me – it’s a very interesting book, in fact, I consider it to be must read material for all interested in politics / foreign affairs. De Blij deals with topics as diverse as terrorism, Africa, Russia, the rise of China as superpower (and India), Europe, Iraq, etc. etc.
To say that mr. De Blij’s resumé is impressive, would be an understatement: besides Why Geography Matters mr. de Blij has authored some 30 other books, he was the Geography Editor on ABC’s “Good Morning America” for seven years and joined NBC News in 1996 as Geography Analyst, appearing mostly on MSNBC, he is currently John A. Hannah Professor at Michigan State University, he was also a professor at Georgetown University, Marshall University, University of Miami, he’s got several honorary degrees. In short, the list goes on and on.
Besides all of that, he’s also a Dutch-American which can only be a good thing.
That’s why I was more than pleased that mr. de Blij agreed to an interview (via e-mail). It’s a great honor to interview someone who wrote a book that influenced me so much. In the interview we talk about Europe, Africa, terrorism, Iran, Iraq, Russia and about mr. de Blij’s life and career.
So, here’s the interview…
MvdG: You are the author of “Why Geography Matters” (a terrific book dealing with issues as diverse as terrorism, the rise of China, climate change, Russia, Europe, Africa, etc.). So; why does geography matter?
HdB: Wow! I wrote a whole book about this and you’re still asking? I’ll obviously have to give this another try. Geography matters because its spatial perspective is one of three ways to look at global problems. There’s (1) the temporal, that is, the historical, chronological -, the “when”; there’s (2) the structural, i.e. the systemic, the economic, political, the “how”; and there’s (3) the geographic -, the “where.” They’re interrelated, of course, but the “where” tends to get short shrift. I argue that while geographic knowledge by itself cannot solve the world’s salient problems, these will not be effectively resolved without it. It was the cultural geography of Iraq that eluded the policy-makers in America in 2002 and 2003, not its complex history or economic functions.
MvdG: You write that geography is largely ignored in the American educational system. How did this come about?
HdB: As I try to report, a combination of factors caused Geography’s decline in the USA, including long-term (the country’s “splendid” isolation between two oceans and two neighbors, seemingly making geography dispensable) and shorter-term (Department of Education policies aimed at “modernization” of education that had the effect of eliminating Geography as a discrete school subject and submerging it in something called the “Social Studies”).
Combined with this was the disastrous failure of Geography Departments at several of the country’s major universities including Harvard and Yale, and later Michigan, attributable to a combination of intellectual and general professional shortcomings on the part of faculties and administrative myopia and cost-cutting. I would add America’s relentless obsession with history (American history, that is) as another factor.
MvdG: How can that be fixed?
HdB: Reinstate geography at elementary and secondary school levels, a campaign started by the National Geographic Society and having some effect; and make the country aware at the public-interest level of what Geographic insights can contribute to national debates (I am working in this arena and WGM is a part of this); also, Geography Departments should be rebuilt in leading universities. Geography recently returned to Harvard University in a limited but potentially significant way, but until Geography is part of its College Curriculum and thousands of undergraduates are exposed to it, Harvard is still lacking. Interestingly, I got several letters from undergraduate students at Harvard after WGM was published, asking why this whole field was not part of their education; one student even published an excellent letter in the Harvard Crimson arguing that Geography should be reconsidered.
MvdG: In WGM you argue that Europe will face big problems due to the aging and decreasing population. Can something be done about that or do you advise me to leave this hellhole migrate?
HdB: Can something be done? Absolutely, mostly in the bedroom but I
gather that Europeans are pretty good at this elsewhere too. Unfortunately the attractions of large families are not what they used to be, as anyone sitting in row 18 in an airplane will agree. So Europeans are still having fun but less, shall we say, outcome. The results are daunting, and I do not see Europe’s future very optimistically. At least Europe’s population is not declining for the same reasons Russia’s is (Russia,of course, is not Europe); dysfunction goes a lot deeper in Russia. Nor does Europe face the cultural obstacles as also-declining Japan with its racial-purity obsessions. But Europe’s geography — that is, its relative location — creates special problems in the sourcing of the immigration stream that has and will replace its demographic losses. Accommodating the ex-colonial and neo-Muslim immigrations has not gone well and various models, including the Dutch, have essentially failed. Regarding your question about emigrating — take a look at the statistics… You’re in good — and much — company. The number of Dutch leaving the Netherlands annually is steadily rising.
MvdG: There is a lot of passionate debate going on (both in E.U. countries and in Turkey) about whether or not Turkey should (be allowed to) join the E.U. What are your thoughts on this issue?
HdB: That’s too big a question for an unavoidably brief response. As is often the case, both (or rather, all) sides seem to be bent on making this experiment fail. The EU should never have allowed Cyprus to be a part of the 2004 expansion, creating the situation now prevailing; it was the Turkish northerners who approved the Annan Plan – and the southern Greeks who voted against it, but the southerners got the prize – and now have a veto over future memberships. From the Turkish viewpoint this looked like raw duplicity. For their part, the Turks do not seem inclined to part with their history of mistreatment of minorities, and recent reports on the situation in the southeastern (Kurdish) corner of the country are discouraging. The human-rights record in Turkey remains mixed at best, and in other ways Turkey is far from ready to join the EU, though perhaps less far now that those paragons of Euro-virtues, Bulgaria and Romania, have been admitted. It would appear that a staged accession, in which Turkey would first reach a “special relationship” position prior to full participation, might be appropriate; but in Turkey the original eagerness to join has plummeted and public opinion has gone from more than 75% in favor to less than 25%. The issue may be moot before the process gets much farther.
MvdG: Many Europeans (Europeans from smaller countries that is) complain that the big countries like Germany and France have (or claim) too much power(s). At the same time it is expected that Germany’s population will decrease significantly within a few decades. How will this change the balance in the region?
HdB: Germany’s power in the EU is, of course, based not only on its
numbers but also on the size of its economy; it’s often seen abroad as the “engine of Europe.” It’s quite possible that countries whose populations are shrinking, not only Germany but other European states as well, and Japan also, will find ways to sustain the growth of their economies even as populations dwindle. Automation and other technologies are likely to play a role in this. It is also possible that Germany’s decline will be partly offset by immigration, not necessarily from old sources such as Turkey but perhaps from the “old” Eastern Europe. Still, the power question is a difficult one for European countries; France and Germany have been running the EU show for years and it’s frustrating not only for small countries such as the Netherlands and Denmark but also for the “middle” size states like Spain and, more recently, Poland. The negotiations leading to the Constitutional provision arising from the “double majority” solution — a voting majority meaning 65 percent of the population and 55+ percent of the member states in the European Council — to some extent mitigated the concerns of the small states. However, I can see a time when it will be necessary for the smaller countries to band together in some formal way to protect their interests and advance their priorities. This may not be as simple as a “core” and “periphery” group, a two-tier Europe, as some observers predict (and which, essentially, already exists as your question implies). I think that Europe’s still-expanding Union will have to come to terms with the emergence of intra-EU associations of various kinds, creating a patchwork of coalitions as, in effect, is already happening (look at Schengen and EMU). Thus some member (small) state — the Netherlands would be especially appropriate — might lead a coalition of the 14 smallest EU countries, that is, more than half the members) in an effort to promote the interests of the smaller states against those of Germany and its partner. Power tends to become entrenched, and I don’t see Germany’s declining just because of demographic factors. So active countering of Germany’s excessive influence would be the way to go.
MvdG: Some people are afraid that Putin is trying to make Russia – once again – a major power in the world. Is that fear justified from a geographic perspective? Does Russia have the potential to become a major power / superpower once again?
HdB: Of course Russia is trying to become a superpower again, and it has two major weapons — nuclear capability and energy — to give substance to the idea. Also a fine way of living with contradictions, as in killing Muslim Chechnyans while cozying up to Muslim Iranians. Russia, however, has a series of crucial problems to confront beyond its failing democracy and commodity-driven external economy: public health is a disaster, the population is shrinking by 750,000 annually, xenophobia is rife, the domestic economy is in a shambles, freedoms (media, education, economy) are eroding and the eastern frontier is not only depopulating but in danger of Chinese penetration (some Chinese maps at times refer to the Russian Far East as “Stolen Lands”). Unfortunately American actions (NATO expansion to Russian borders, Poland-based anti-missile batteries) are firing up Russian nationalism, causing many Russians to forget their troubles in support of the fatherland. Your question about Russia’s potential is key here. Unless Russian leaders find ways to stem the tide of depopulation and migration, Russia may become ungovernable; it is vast and vulnerable despite its energy assets and weaponry. It remains essentially landlocked and its high-latitude situation constitutes a disadvantage despite global warming. Russia needs an industrial base, a balanced economy, a mature polity – and that will take time. My guess is that Russia’s weaknesses will lead to the loss of its Far Eastern frontier to China even as it tries to regain “superpowerâ€? status in the west.
MvdG: Africa continues to be the ‘black continent’. It’s mostly still ignored. Wars are being fought, people die of hunger and of AIDS, but the rich West is, somehow, still standing by and doing virtually nothing. Should Africa concern us Westerners?
HdB: Of course Africa should concern the West. If the planet is shrinking and we can talk of a “global village”, one of its neighborhoods is desperately badly off, and that neighborhood is Africa. African diseases ravage the realm’s population and have the potential to threaten the world (the next pandemic may not be as relatively limited as AIDS and could kill hundreds rather than dozens of millions); Africa is an incubator of diseases and its public-health picture is the darkest in the world. Africa lies open to an ideological struggle was well, and Islam is making rapid progress beyond the “Islamic Front” I display on my map of changing Africa. African economies are bedeviled by the trade barriers, unfair tariffs and protectionism of so-called “free-trade” nations like France (and other EU states) and the USA. Yet Africa has much oil and many other commodities the West needs — and the Chinese are there to buy from under its nose. For centuries Africa has had a worse deal than any other realm of the world, from slavery to colonialism and from proxy (Cold) wars to rapacious dictatorships propped up by the “democratic” West. It’s time to make some restitution.
To find out what Harm de Blij exactly means with ‘restitution’, read Part 2 which will be published tomorrow. In part 2, we also talk about Iran, Iraq and his own career.
Harm de Blij’s book Why Geograph Matters can be purchased at Amazon by clicking on the image below.
PAST CONTRIBUTOR.