Geopolitical legacies and lessons

Legacies have a thing about them. When left behind, for good or bad, legacies are always remembered. If legacies are the long-lasting impact of particular events, then the global leaders creating them sometimes forget that long after they are gone, they will be least remembered for who they were and what they did and most remembered for the long-lasting impact of their actions — their legacies. Some legacies have left a profound effect in the way that we live our lives today and as student of history I would like to highlight a few geopolitical legacies so that we don't forget that our journey as a nation state can become more worthwhile, fulfilling and rewarding if we keep these legacies in mind and learn the right lessons that history has taught us about them.

The 1648 Westphalian system of sovereign states gave birth to the modern nation-state system; the places we call our homelands and where we live. I consider it an important geopolitical legacy because it permanently transformed how the world is politically organised today. The legacy has not only lived on but cemented itself in creating a framework that even almost 400 years later values national borders, sovereignty and non-interference as principles of the Westphalian system, and which defines us as nation-states. The lesson from history is that borders, sovereignty and non-interference are state-level responsibilities and obligations, but a state alone cannot uphold Westphalian principles unless society supports it.

The second legacy is the Greek legacy of democracy. Had it not been for this legacy, the modern concepts of citizenship, elections, representation, separation of powers and rule of law may have been deeply misunderstood. Arguably, democracy is the most enduring political inheritance since the creation of human history. The lesson from history is that the true nature of democracy can never be understood and implemented by institutions or constitutions; it must ultimately be upheld, protected and practiced by the people.

The third geopolitical legacy is about the colonial borders and their enduring consequences. The white man's burden was not carried well, and arbitrary borders drawn by colonial powers resulted in creating many ethnic, territorial and political tensions for the people living in the Third World, in places like the Middle East, Africa and Asia. Some of these borders are the core geopolitical fault lines in the world. The colonists left behind fragile institutions and concentrated, unchecked and unlimited executive power. The lesson from history is that strong institutions matter more than strong leaders and healing colonial trauma requires justice and inclusion.

The fourth geopolitical legacy is the legacy of Post-1945 American Primacy and the creation of the US-led world order. The rules-based liberal order is on the wane, and so is the dollar dominance and security alliances. The world has entered a new era, an era not just dominated by the US but contested by other great powers. The legacy of US primacy is likely to be remembered in how US promoted the idea of the use of force to change facts on the ground, facts which later on diplomacy was asked and expected to accommodate. Seen in the current context of President Trump's efforts to push the 28-point peace plan for Ukraine and the 20-point peace plan for Gaza, would the legacy of US primacy be remembered as an act of betrayal? To the victims of war, US-sponsored terms offer two choices: accepting them, which seems like an act of betrayal, or continuing to fight an unwinnable war.

The lessons that we can learn from history is that application of force may create immediate results, but it will never create sustainable legitimacy. Also, military solutions without political legitimacy eventually collapse, and when these solutions are pushed by great powers, they encourage imitation and also contribute to the erosion of norms in medium and ordinary powers.

The fifth legacy in global geopolitics is the legacy of non-state actors. How the militant groups, terrorist networks, multinational corporations and NGO's influence geopolitics. This is a major legacy of the post-Cold War and post-9/11 era. But post-9/11, terrorism and terrorist networks have reshaped global politics in ways few other actors have. Governments all over the world were forced to rethink security doctrines, military planning, intelligence sharing and border control. The non-state actor's legacy, especially in the context of the global war on terror, teaches us three lessons: threats in global politics no longer require a state, an army or territory; non-state actors can globalise insecurity faster than states can build cooperation; terrorism is a transnational threat fuelled by misgovernance, conflicting ideologies and unhindered access to technology.

The sixth legacy is the deepest legacy in geopolitics, and it states that geography is destiny. It does not mean that geography determines everything — but it does shape the constraints, opportunities and strategic behaviour of nations. Mountain ranges act as barriers against external threats and provide security. Plains bring vulnerability, but access to seas and a coastline lifts the stature of a state as a sea power. Rivers define and accommodate civilizations, whereas interiors and deserts prevent cosmopolitism. This geographic legacy teaches us at least three lessons: National ambitions must account for geographic realities. Strategy must match geography, not the other way around. Ignoring geography — like overstretching into terrains you cannot hold — produces military and economic failure.

The last geopolitical legacy that I want to refer to is the nuclear legacy. Nuclear weapons changed geopolitics permanently. Concepts like first-strike, second-strike, extended deterrence and nuclear umbrellas still guide the US, Russia, China, India and Pakistan's nuclear doctrines. Nuclear weapons changed how states think about war, security, alliances and survival. From this legacy, the lessons that emerge are: Deterrence works not because states want to use nuclear weapons, but because they want to avoid their use at all costs. Nuclear weapons impose a ceiling on escalation and are preventers of total war. Nuclear capability equalises power in ways conventional weapons never could. Nuclear weapons create stability instead of solutions. Most importantly, a nuclear state must be more disciplined, not more reckless.