Selim Ibraimi- While competition of all kinds and the future bring uncertainty, not only for small states, but also for large ones, the geographical position of a state and strategic thinking appear as decisive features in understanding the future. These features are undeniable in the context of geopolitics from antiquity to our time. Today, we can say that they are the two main driving forces in international relations. Traditional diplomacy, which states use to build predictable diplomatic relations, step by step, is passing under the shadow of the dynamic world of unpredictable relations between states and non-state actors.
Now let’s take a look at thinking and geographical position as concepts in geopolitics and beyond. The concept of the geographical position of a state in geopolitics is about the connection between space and political developments. The concept of place in geopolitics refers to the interaction between geographical spaces and political processes, which tells us more about the dynamics of power. Historically, geographical, economic, cultural, and religious features have determined the outcomes of state initiatives. When thought of in this context, it provides a framework for leaders to recognize important strategic realities in international relations. Throughout history, there have been many situations where the geographical position and the thinking of leaders have played a decisive role in the outcome of crises or wars.
Let us now move on to the real world, where political leaders cannot avoid making mistakes in foreign and global policy matters. Of course, this process is related to how leaders constantly think about future actions in foreign and domestic policy. “Great Britain and France must work together to counter the many destabilizing threats and to protect Europe from ‘overdependence’ on the US and China,” French President Emmanuel Macron told the British parliament on Tuesday. President Macron’s statement clearly shows that the dependence of states on others, now and in the future, on the most powerful, does not go in favor of the position of a less weak state or states, nor favor of strategic thinking. Therefore, this concern is more related to the position of a state in international politics. We have many such examples. Let us go down to the Balkan level, where issues remain open and similar ideas about the lack of strategic thinking and geographical position are now being expressed.
Strategic assumptions have historically contributed to miscalculations, and here we can take some examples. Political leaders must, in principle, act in a reality that is based on limitations and superiority, be they geographical, economic, military, etc. The Balkans, which are strategically located between Western, Eastern, and Middle Eastern Europe, are a classic case that has influenced the strategic decision-making of leaders with tragic errors, not only driven by external factors, but also by internal regional factors. As strategic mistakes by foreign powers, we can take the case of Srebrenica in Bosnia-Herzegovina in July 1995, where the negligence of the external factor brought about a tragedy where over 8 thousand members of the Bosniak community were killed by Serbian forces. The delay and divisions in Western policy fell into the category of miscalculations of Western states, and of course, of the location of the tragedy. The loss of credibility towards the West and other UN member states was also assessed as a failure of international institutions or peacekeeping forces to prevent the killings in Srebrenica.
Another example can be taken from Albania, which has already received the green light from the EU for membership in the union. The strategic thinking of the leadership in Tirana was more important for this progress than the geographical position and economic power of Albania. With the same examples, we can continue further in other Balkan countries. Thus, days ago, the Prime Minister of North Macedonia, Hristijan Mickoski, in the absence of a solution with Bulgaria, according to reactions in Skopje, chose to attack based on personal qualifications, which shows a disregard for strategic thinking and the position of the state in relations with other countries. “That guy was sent to attract my attention”. “I don’t think we should give him the opportunity, and I appeal to you, the media. Leave that guy there. This is a government that someone else is running in the background; those people need to work. And they gave him a task: come on now, harass him. “It’s like a mouse harassing a lion”, said Prime Minister Mickoski, referring to the positions of the Foreign Minister, Bulgarian Georgi Georgiev. Both countries accuse each other of provocations without finally offering a concrete solution since 2017.
Further from the history of the Balkans, we can bring the reader an even better example. During the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, the Balkans were the central theme of the “Eastern Question” (1806-1923). The miscalculations of Western states later led to the growth of nationalism in the Balkans, contributing to the growth of extremist groups opposing the influence of Austria-Hungary. The annexation of Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1908 by Austria-Hungary was one of the reasons that, in 1914, the assassination of Franz Ferdinand was the trigger for the start of World War I (WWI). At that time, external factors, their decisions and which were followed by events known later in the 20th century can be considered miscalculations. Finally, in modern relations between states, historical, geographical, religious, economic, cultural, etc., aspects should never be underestimated. But here it is important to say that short-term assessment by leaders leads to instability and bad relations in foreign and domestic policy. Historical mistakes over the past two centuries illustrate the above-mentioned examples that strategic assumptions and geopolitical positions are part of a larger outcome that states must achieve in their relations with each other.
In the context of the position of the Balkan states, it can be further said that by understanding all sides of disputes, by understanding the role of external and local actors. By making sustainable planning, governments can avoid repeating the tragedies of the past, both at the regional and wider levels.
The article was written specifically for Portalb.mk. The publication rights are only owned by Portalb.mk and the author, according to the agreement between them.