The Heartland theory is a geopolitical concept which analyzes the political and economic

success of the world’s regions by geography. The theory was hypothesized by 20th-
century British geopolitical scholar, Halford Mackinder in his paper to the Royal
Geographical Association entitled, “The Geographical Pivot of History” in 1904.

According to the theory, the core of global influence lies in what is known as the Heartland,

- a region of the world situated in Eurasia due to its sheer land size,

- a wealth of resources,

- a high population.

- great natural barriers which surrounded the Heartland (protection from enemy
invasion).

In the “Geographical Pivot of History,” Halford Mackinder stated that world’s terrestrial
surface was segmented into three basic geographical regions which are

- The World-Island, comprising the interlinked continents of Europe, Asia,

and Africa (Afro-Eurasia). This was the largest, most populous, and richest of all
possible land combinations.

- The offshore islands, including the British Isles and the islands of Japan.

- The outlying islands, including the continents of North America, South America,
and Australia.

World-Island was the largest of the three regions, accounting for two-thirds of the earth’s
terrestrial surface and home to about 87.5% of the world’s population.

World-Island was also the richest of the three world regions in resources.

In 1919, Mackinder summarised his theory thus:

"Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland;

who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island;
who rules the World-Island commands the world."
(Mackinder, Democratic Ideals and Reality, p. 150)

Any power which controlled the World-Island would control well over 50% of the world's
resources. The Heartland's size and central position made it the key to controlling the
World-Island.

Halford J. Mackinder

Geopolitics is one framework for understanding the resurgence and implications of

contemporary great power politics in the region. Geopolitical theorist Halford J. Mackinder
developed his heartland theory in response to the 19th century competition between Great
Britain and Russia.
Mackinder’s theory is based on the premise that Eurasia is the global pivot point and
whoever controls the Eurasian continent—which he refers to as the world island— can
exercise global dominance.

His theories were contested and to an extent discredited by Nicholas Spykman, who
argued it was control of what he called the “rimlands” and maritime power that held the key
to global supremacy.

Spykman argued a lack of maritime power in the heartland undermined Eurasia’s ability to
dominate global trade. Spykman largely conceived the rimlands as the United States and
coastal Western European powers who controlled the Atlantic Ocean.

The Second World War and Cold War seemed to reinforce Spykman’s argument—a view
that continues to dominate contemporary geopolitical forecasting. Spykman foresaw the
re-emergence of China as the dominant Pacific power; he did not, however, anticipate it
becoming a Eurasian power due to its anticipated rivalry with Russia—an assumption that
has held for much of the 20th century.

Spykman’s predominance and the ebb and flow of great power politics in the 20th century
saw Mackinder’s heartland theory wane as a means to describe inter-state competition.

However, based on changed geopolitical dynamics since 2001, Mackinder’s theory

provides a valuable prism through which to view renewed great power competition in
Central and South Asia. It is here that Russian and Chinese interests intersect, and also
where the United States is seeking to retain hard-won but fragile influence.

This highlights that the Great Game never stopped, it just changed character. Eurasia’s
relevance may have waned during the Cold War, but it never lost its geopolitical
importance.

**"The Great Game" was a political and diplomatic confrontation that existed for most of
the 19th century between the British Empire and the Russian Empire over Afghanistan and
neighbouring territories in Central and South Asia. Russia was fearful of British commercial
and military inroads into Central Asia, and Britain was fearful of Russia adding "the jewel in
the crown", India, to the vast empire that Russia was building in Asia. This resulted in an
atmosphere of distrust and the constant threat of war between the two empires.

Nicholas J. Spykman

His work on geopolitics and geostrategy led him to be to known as the "godfather
of containment." Containment is a geopolitical "strategic foreign policy pursued by the
United States". It is loosely related to the term cordon sanitaire which was later used to
describe the geopolitical containment of the Soviet Union in the 1940s. The strategy of
"containment" is best known as a Cold War foreign policy of the United States and its allies
to prevent the spread of communism after the end of World War II.

Spykman differs from Mackinder, who sees Eurasian wars as historically pitting the
Heartland against the sea powers for control of the rimland, establishing a land power-sea
power opposition. Spykman states that historically, battles have pitted either Britain and
Rimland allies against Russia and its Rimland allies or Britain and Russia together against
a dominating Rimland power. In other words, the Eurasian struggle was not the sea
powers containing the Heartland but the prevention of any power from ruling the Rimland.
Spykman disagrees with Mackinder's famous dictum:

Who controls eastern Europe rules the Heartland;

Who controls the Heartland rules the World Island; and
Who rules the World Island rules the World.

He refashions it thus:

Who controls the Rimland rules Eurasia;

Who rules Eurasia controls the destinies of the world.

Therefore, British, Russian, and US power would play the key roles in controlling the
European litoral and there the essential power relations of the world.

The Rimland (Mackinder's "Inner or Marginal Crescent") sections:

- the European coast land;

- the Arabian-Middle Eastern desert land; and,

- the Asiatic monsoon land.

The Rimland has great importance because of its demographic weight, natural resources,
and industrial development. Spykman sees that its importance to be the reason that the
Rimland will be crucial to containing the Heartland, but Mackinder had believed that the
Outer or Insular Crescent would be the most important factor in containing the Heartland.

Criticism

The Heartland Theory is seen by critics as impractical, during the time of the writing of the
Heartland Theory, most of East Europe and Russia did not have any proper road or railway
network, making the belief of conquering the Heartland logistically impossible. However,
the Soviet Union later invested heavily in road and rail transport in the 20th Century,
resulting in thousands of miles of rail tracks and roads and therefore rendering
Mackinder’s argument as baseless. The Heartland can be reachable and conqureable.

Mackinder wrote down the theory in the turn of the 20th century, did not consider the effect
of modern technology on his theory. For instance, the writer claimed that the existing
natural barriers would protect the Heartland from foreign invasion. However, modern
warfare features long-range missiles and fighter jets which easily cancel out the “natural
barrier.” History has also proven the flaws of the theory. The Mongol Invasions which
swept through the Heartland did not have the aforementioned modern weapons but were
nonetheless able to conquer vast regions of the “impenetrable” heartland.

At that time Mackinder he took into consideration world history only in the context of
conflict between land and sea powers. Nations with large navies were at an advantage
over those that could not successfully navigate the oceans. In the modern era, the use of
aircraft has greatly changed the ability to control territory and provide defensive
capabilities.
Modern Interpretation

While the Heartland Theory was drafted in the early 20th century, some scholars can link
recent events of the 21st century as examples of the Heartland Theory in action. Based on
Mackinder’s map, China is a constituent of the World-Island as are other major global
powers including the EU, India, and Russia. In recent years, China’s influence in countries
of the World-Island has been on an upward trend, with the country using economic support
to gain patronage and loyalty from the countries. Some see China's prominence in
international affairs as culminating with the country being the global power.

CHINA

In 2011, a Chinese military academic, Zhiyuan Lin, inverted Mackinder by suggesting that
some in the US were applying his Heartland theory to the South China Sea, believing that
who controls the South China Sea will command East Asia, and consequently the World-
Island. Following Lin’s logic, China is defending the Heartland – and itself – from American
imperialism.

As Halford Mackinder explained the Heartland Theory in “The Geographical Pivot of

History” in 1904. Whichever nation controlled Eastern Europe would control the Heartland
(the core of Eurasia); subsequently this nation would then control the World Island (all of
Europe and Asia); and finally, would dominate the world. Alfred Thayer Mahan’s view was
focused upon the oceans. Simply, whoever conquered the seas would control the world.
Both have proven true throughout history, but not at the same time with the same nation.
The partnership of Mackinder and Mahan’s theories are found within the PRC’s One Belt
One Road (OBOR) project.

Mackinder’s Heartland theory was inspired by the railways spanning Siberia; now with the
PRC’s One Belt One Road (OBOR) project, the Chinese are following Mackinder’s logic in
building new internal lines of communication that will stretch right across Eurasia into
western Europe.

The OBOR is the world’s largest economic endeavor potentially involving 60 nations and
more than 4.4 billion people. It was first mentioned by Chinese President Xi Jinping in
2013. He figuratively discussed it in his 2015 statement at the UN. A major component of
this speech was his claim of “win-win” situations all over the world. This new silk road
would open unfettered pathways to Europe, Africa, and ultimately Latin America.
According to Scott Kennedy of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, the
OBOR will “include promotion of enhanced policy coordination across the Asian continent,
financial integration, trade liberalization, and people-to-people connectivity.” This project is
not without its political implications for South Asia as well. If China is successful in its
goals, they will prove both geopolitical theories as symbiotic, and become the new
superpower.
SUMMARY
WHO RULES HEARTLAND RULES THE WORLD
WHO RULES RIMLAND CONTROL THE DESTINIES OF THE WORLD
WHO RULES HEARTLAND AND CONTROL RIMLAND CAN OWN THE WORLD?

Quotations

"Geography is the most fundamental factor in foreign policy because it is the most
permanent." —from The Geography of the Peace

"Plans for far-reaching changes in the character of international society are

an intellectual by-product of all great wars." —from America's Strategy in World Politics

"There are not many instances in history which show great and powerful states
creating alliances and organizations to limit their own strength. States are always engaged
in curbing the force of some other state. The truth of the matter is that states are interested
only in a balance which is in their favor. Not an equilibrium, but a generous margin is their
objective. There is no real security in being just as strong as a potential enemy; there is
security only in being a little stronger. There is no possibility of action if one's strength is
fully checked; there is a chance for a positive foreign policy only if there is a margin of
force which can be freely used. Whatever the theory and rationalization, the practical
objective is the constant improvement of the state's own relative power position. The
balance desired is the one which neutralizes other states, leaving the home state free to
be the deciding force and the deciding voice." —from America's Strategy in World Politics

"[A] political equilibrium is neither a gift of the gods nor an inherently stable condition. It
results from the active intervention of man, from the operation of political forces. States
cannot afford to wait passively for the happy time when a miraculously achieved balance
of power will bring peace and security. If they wish to survive, they must be willing to go to
war to preserve a balance against the growing hegemonic power of the period." —
from America's Strategy in World Politics
"Nations which renounce the power struggle and deliberately choose impotence will cease
to influence international relations either for evil or good." —from America's Strategy in
World Politics

"The facts of location do not change. The significant of such facts changes with every shift
in the means of communication, in routes of communication, in the technique of war, and
in the centers of world power, and the full meaning of a given location can be obtained only
by considering the specific area in relations to two systems of reference: a geographic
system of reference from which we derive the facts of location, and a historical system of
reference by which we evaluate those facts."
—from "Geography and Foreign Policy I", American Political Science Review, Vol XXXII,
No. 1 (February 1938), p. 29.