Between Geopolitics and Anti-Geopolitics: Czech Political Thought

Abstract

This article examines the role of geopolitics in modern Czech political thinking. It draws on the distinction between geopolitics and anti-geopolitics to argue that the dominant tradition of Czech political thinking is anti-geopolitical. This anti-geopolitics is presented by a review of four central figures of Czech political thought since the nineteenth century (Palacký, Masaryk, Nejedlý and Havel). However, it also shows that geopolitics represents an important undercurrent in Czech political thinking which tends to dominate for brief periods of turmoil. Three such periods are addressed: the early 1920s, the late 1930s and the early 1990s.

Notes

1. The author would like to thank Gertjan Dijkink, Virginie Mamadouh, David Newman and four anonymous referees for their helpful comments. A draft version of this article was presented at the “Geopolitics as knowledge community” panel at the SGIR conference “Constructing World Orders”, The Hague, September 9–11, 2004. It has been written within a research project on “self-fulfilling geopolitics? An analysis of geopolitical thought in post Cold-War Europe” led by Stefano Guzzini.

2. There is a wide literature on Russian geopolitics in the 1990s. Cf. Ch. Clover, ‘Dreams of the Eurasian Heartland: The Reemergence of Geopolitics,’ Foreign Affairs 78/2 (March/April 1999) pp. 9–13; V. Kolossov and R. Turovsky, ‘Russian Geopolitics at the Fin-de-siecle,’ Geopolitics 6/1 (2001) pp. 141–164; V. Kolossov, “High’ and ‘Low’ Geopolitics: Images of Foreign Countries in the Eyes of Russian Citizens,’ Geopolitics 8/1 (Spring 2003) pp. 121–148; S. Mäkinen,’On the Geopolitical Discourses of the Russian Yabloko Association, 1993–2001,’ Geopolitics 8/1 (Spring 2003) pp. 149–180; A. Ingram ‘Alexander Dugin: Geopolitics and Neo-fascism in Post-Soviet Russia,’ Political Geography 20 (2001) pp. 1029–1051; J. O’Loughlin, ‘Geopolitical Fantasies, National Strategies and Ordinary Russians in the Post-Communist Era,’ Geopolitics 5 (2001) pp. 17–48; J. O’Loughlin, G. Ó Tuathail and V. Kolossov, ‘Russian Geopolitical Storylines and Ordinary Russians in the Wake of 9–11,’ Communist and Post‐Communist Studies 37 (2004) pp. 281–318; A. P. Tsygankov, ‘Mastering Space in Eurasia: Russian Geopolitical Thinking after the Soviet Break-up,’ Communist and Post-Communist Studies 35 (2003) pp. 101–127.

3. There are a few exceptions, though, linking geopolitics to new national identities constructions. See G. Dijkink, ‘The Empire of Revenge (Serbia),’ National Identity & Geopolitical Visions: Maps of Pride & Pain (London and New York: Routledge 1996) pp. 109–118; E. Berg, ‘Some Unintended Consequences of Geopolitical Reasoning in Post-Soviet Estonia: Texts and Policy Streams, Maps, and Cartoons,’ Geopolitics 8/1 (Spring 2003) pp. 101–120; S. Moisio, ‘EU Eligibility, Central Europe, and the Invention of Applicant State Narrative,’ Geopolitics 7/3 (Winter 2002) pp. 89–116; S. Wood, ‘A Common European Space? National Identity, Foreign Land Ownership and EU Enlargement: The Polish and Czech Cases,’ Geopolitics 9/3 (Autumn 2004) pp. 588–607.

4. Cf. V. D. Mamadouh, ‘Geopolitics in the Nineties: One Flag, Many Meanings,’ GeoJournal 46 (1998) pp. 237–253.

5. See H. van der Wusten and G. Dijkink, ‘German, British and French Geopolitics: The Enduring Differences,’ Geopolitics 7/3 (Winter 2002) p. 20.

6. Quoted in G. Ó Tuathail and John Agnew, ‘Geopolitics and Discourse: Practical Geopolitical Reasoning in American Foreign Policy,’ in G. Ó Tuathail, S. Dalby and P. Routledge (eds.), The Geopolitics Reader (London and New York: Routledge 1992/1998) p. 79.

7. See E. H. Carr, Twenty Years’ Crisis (London: Macmillan 1938).

8. Quoted in P. Routledge,’Anti-Geopolitics: Introduction,’ in G. Ó Tuathail, S. Dalby and P. Routledge (eds.), The Geopolitics Reader (London and New York: Routledge 1998) pp. 245–255.

9. See G. Ó Tuathail, ‘Thinking Critically About Geopolitics,’ in G. Ó Tuathail, S. Dalby and P. Routledge (eds.), The Geopolitics Reader (London and New York: Routledge 1998) p. 10.

10. See G. Dijkink, National Identity & Geopolitical Visions: Maps of Pride & Pain (London and New York: Routledge 1996) p. 103.

11. See J. Nijman, ‘Madeleine Albright and the Geopolitics of Europe,’ GeoJournal 46 (1998) p. 274.

12. Ibid. p. 276.

13. Guzzini shows that realism as a discipline of social research represents an attempt by Hans Morgenthau at translating what used to be common sense about European diplomacy into the language of American social science. See S. Guzzini, Realism in International Relations and International Political Economy. the Continuing Story of a Death Foretold (London, New York: Routledge 1998). This observation helps us understand the great extent to which the language of practitioners of international politics, and indeed of significant parts of IR research, is realist. See F. A. Beer and R. Harriman, ‘Realism and Rhetoric in International Relations,’ in F. A Beer, and R. Harriman (eds.), Post-Realism: The Rhetorical Turn in International Relations (East Lansing: Michigan State University Press 1996) pp. 6–7. Ó Tuathail makes a brief observation on the links between geopolitics, realism and common sense about international relations. See G. Ó Tuathail, Critical Geopolitics (Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press 1996) pp. 168–169.

14. Quoted in G. Ó Tuathail, ‘and John Agnew Geopolitics and Discourse: Practical Geopolitical Reasoning in American Foreign Policy,’ in G. Ó Tuathail, S. Dalby and P. Routledge (eds.), The Geopolitics Reader (London and New York: Routledge 1992/1998) p. 79.

15. Geopolitics resonates very well with Cartesian modernity, offering a transparent ‘big picture’ of international politics, which fits into modernist attempts to understand human society in a scientific way. See G. Ó Tuathail, Critical Geopolitics (Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press 1996); J. Agnew, Geopolitics: Re-visioning World Politics (London, New York: Routledge 1998).

16. This is analogical to the use of realist arguments in idealist writings, which often rely on a Hobbesian analysis of reality to demonstrate the necessity of their idealist solutions. Cf. E. Reves, The Anatomy of Peace (New York: Harper Brothers 1945).

17. See F. Palacký, Dč]jiny národa českého v Čechách a v Moravě (Prague 1907).

18. See L. Hrabová, ‘Palacký a kontinuita dějin,’ in F. Šmahel and E. Doležalová (eds.), František Palacký 1798/1998, dějiny a dnešek (Prague: Historický ústav AV ČR 1999) p. 89.

19. See J. Válka, ‘Palacký a francouzští liberální historikové,’ in F. Šmahel and E. Doležalová (eds.), František Palacký 1798/1998, dějiny a dnešek (Prague: Historický ústav AV ČR 1999) p. 95.

20. In this respect, he highly values Jan Hus, the spiritual father of the movement, while being rather ambiguous about Jan Žižka, the military leader of the Hussites. See P. Čornej, ‘Ke genezi Palackého pojetí husitství,’ in F. Šmahel and E. Doležalová (eds.), František Palacký 1798/1998, dějiny a dnešek (Prague: Historický ústav AV ČR 1999) pp. 131–133.

21. See M. Bednář, ‘Význam Palackého filosofické obnovy české státní ideje,’ in F. Šmahel and E. Doležalová (eds.), František Palacký 1798/1998, dějiny a dnešek (Prague: Historický ústav AV ČR 1999) p. 64 ; F. Palacký, ‘Geschichte des Hussitenthums und Prof. Constantin Höfler,’ in Kritische Studien (Prague 1868) p. 65.

22. Quoted in Z. Šolle, ‘Palacký, Masaryk, habsburská monarchie a střední Evropa,’ in F. Šmahel and E. Doležalová (eds.), František Palacký 1798/1998, dějiny a dnešek (Prague: Historický ústav AV ČR 1999) p. 473.

23. See E. Gellner, ‘The Price of Velvet: Thomas Masaryk and Václav Havel,’ Czech Sociological Review, 3/1 (1995) p. 49.

24. See T. G. Masaryk, Světová revoluce (Prague: Orbis 1925).

25. See J. Opat, ‘TGM – pokračovatel v Palackého díle politickém,’ in F. Šmahel and E. Doležalová (eds.), František Palacký 1798/1998, dějiny a dnešek (Prague: Historický ústav AV ČR 1999) pp. 349–360.

26. See T. G. Masaryk, Světová revoluce (Prague: Orbis 1925) pp. 410–420.

27. See J. Patočka, Tři studie o Masarykovi (Prague: Mladá fronta 1991).

28. See E. Gellner, ‘The Price of Velvet: Thomas Masaryk and Václav Havel,’ Czech Sociological Review 3/1 (1995) pp. 45–58.

29. The only book referring to geopolitics published in communist Czechoslovakia was a Czech translation of the Soviet book “Fascist geopolitics serving American imperialism”. See J. N. Semjonov, Fašistická geopolitika ve službách amerického imperialismu (Prague: Naše vojsko 1951), Russian original: Fashistskaja geopolitika na sluzhbe amerikanskogo imperializma (Moscow: Gospolitizdat 1949).

30. See Z. Nejedlý, Velké osobnosti (Prague: Mladá fronta 1951).

31. Masaryk is the person Havel referred to most frequently in his speeches during the 1990s. See V. Havel, Projevy a jiné texty z let 1992–1999. Spisy VII (Prague: Torst, 1999).

32. Ibid. p. 66.

33. See E. Gellner.

34. Quoted in V. Havel, Letní přemítání. Spisy VI (Prague: Torst 1999) p. 487.

35. Quoted in V. Havel, ‘Z projevu prezidenta ČSFR Václava Havla na mezinárodní konferenci v Oslu o lidských právech a občanských svobodách (28.8.1990),’ Československá zahraniční politika – dokumenty 37/7–9 (Prague: Federal Ministry of Foreign Affairs 1990) pp. 231–237.

36. See V. Havel, ‘Projev prezidenta V. Havla na slavnostním shromáždění u příležitosti návštěvy prezidenta SRN Richarda von Weizsäckera v Československu (15.3.1990)‘, Československá zahraniční politika – dokumenty 37/1–3 (Prague: Federal Ministry of Foreign Affairs 1990c) pp. 37–42.

37. See V. Havel, ‘Projev prezidenta V. Havla v Kongresu USA (21.2. 1990),’ Československá zahraniční politika – dokumenty 37/1–3 (Prague: Federal Ministry of Foreign Affairs 1990) pp. 19–26 ; V. Havel, ‘Vystoupení prezidenta Václava Havla v Bratislavě na setkání tří prezidentů – meetingu 90 (19.4.1990)‘, Československá zahraniční politika – dokumenty 37/4–6 (Prague: Federal Ministry of Foreign Affairs 1990) pp. 84–90.

38. See V. Havel, ‘Projev prezidenta V. Havla v polském Sejmu (25.1. 1990),’ Československá zahraniční politika – dokumenty 37/1–3 (Prague: Federal Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 1990) pp. 9–14; V. Havel, ‘Projev prezidenta V. Havla v Kongresu USA (21.2. 1990),’ Ceskoslovenská zahranixní politika – dokumenty 37/1–3 (Prague: Federal Ministry of Foreign Affairs 1990) pp. 19–26.

39. Quoted in V. Dvorský, Území československého národa (Prague 1918) p. 63.

40. Quoted in V. Dvorský, Základy politické geografie a československý stát (Prague 1923) p. 19.

41. Ibid. p. 16–19.

42. Ibid. p. 22.

43. See J. Korčák, Geopolitické základy Československa: Jeho kmenové oblasti (Prague: Orbis 1938).

44. Ibid. p. 7.

45. See F. Ratzel, Antropogeographie I (4^th ed.) (Stuttgart 1899/1921).

46. See P. Vidal de la Blache, ‘Régions francaises,’ Revue de Paris vol. 6 (Paris 1910); E. de Martonne, ‘Europe Centrale I,’ Géographie Universelle vol. 4 (Paris 1930); Demangeon, ‘Géographie politique’ Annales de géographie XLI (Paris 1932); J. Ancel, Géopolitique (Paris 1936); J. Brunhes, Géographie humaine de la France (Paris 1920).

47. See J. Korčák, Geopolitické základy Československa: Jeho kmenové oblasti (Prague: Orbis 1938) p. 16–17.

48. Ibid. p. 39–40.

49. Ibid. p. 45–47.

50. Ibid. p. 53.

51. Ibid. p. 101.

52. Ibid. p. 80.

53. Ibid. p. 158.

54. Ibid. p. 160.

55. See V. Klaus, ‘Masaryk a jeho obraz v dnešní české společnosti,’ Conference T.G. Masaryk, idea demokracie a současné evropanství (Prague, 2 March 2000).

56. Quoted in J. Zieleniec, ‘Rozhovor ministra zahranixí Josefa Zieleniece pro Hospodářské noviny – Dva státy, dvě diplomacie (19.1. 1993),’ Česká zahraniční politika – dokumenty 40 /1 (Prague: Czech Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 1993) pp. 74–79.

57. See J. Zieleniec, ‘Rozhovor Národní obrody s ministrem mezinárodních vztahů ČR Josefem Zieleniecem – Aj po rozvode si ostaneme blízki (6.10. 1992)’ Československá zahraniční politika – dokumenty 39/10 (Prague: Federal Ministry of Foreign Affairs 1992) pp. 885–888; J. Zieleniec, ‘Rozhovor ministra zahraničí Josefa Zieleniece pro Hospodářské noviny – Dva státy, dvě diplomacie (19.1. 1993),’ Česká zahraniční politika dokumenty 40/1 (Prague: Czech Ministry of Foreign Affairs 1993) pp. 74–79.

58. See J. Zieleniec, ‘Rozhovor ministra mezinárodních vztahů ČR Josefa Zieleniece v Práci (29.9. 1992)‘, Československá zahraniční politika – dokumenty 39/9 (Prague: Federal Ministry of Foreign Affairs 1992) pp. 836–839.

59. See V. Klaus, ‘Z projevu ministerského předsedy Václava Klause v Budči (26.9. 1992)‘, Československá zahraniční politika – dokumenty 39/9 (Prague: Federal Ministry of Foreign Affairs 1992) pp. 832–833.

60. Ibid.

61. See B. Hnízdo, Mezinárodní perspektivy politických regionů (Prague: Institut pro středoevropskou kulturu a politiku 1995).

62. Ibid. p. 85.

63. Ibid. p. 96.

64. This, however, leads him to ignore the normative parts of their work, which clearly dominated their thinking. Krejčí‘s selective bias is strengthened by his focus on their contributions to the political discourse rather than on their scholarly works, where it is much more difficult to find traces of geopolitical thinking. The case for Palacký being a geopolitician rests mainly on his newspaper articles, open letters and pamphlets. In the case of Masaryk, Krejčí focuses on his publications from the time of World War I, rather than on his previous scholarly work. See O. Krejčí, Český národní zájem a geopolitika (Prague: Universe 1993) p. 63.

65. Ibid. p. 26

66. He uses the following labels: St. Wenceslavian, Masarykian and Slavic. Ibid. p. 120.

67. Ibid. p. 121.

68. See notes 2 and 3.