Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
American Political Science Association, Cambridge University Press are collaborating with
JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The American Political Science Review
This content downloaded from 194.27.34.118 on Mon, 12 Dec 2016 17:26:58 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
The American
Political Science Review
VOL. XXXIII JUNE, 1939 NO. 3
I. EXPANSION
This content downloaded from 194.27.34.118 on Mon, 12 Dec 2016 17:26:58 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
392 THE AMERICAN POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEW
This content downloaded from 194.27.34.118 on Mon, 12 Dec 2016 17:26:58 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
GEOGRAPHIC OBJECTIVES IN FOREIGN POLICY 393
This content downloaded from 194.27.34.118 on Mon, 12 Dec 2016 17:26:58 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
394 THE AMERICAN POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEW
This content downloaded from 194.27.34.118 on Mon, 12 Dec 2016 17:26:58 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
GEOGRAPHIC OBJECTIVES IN FOREIGN POLICY 395
II. FRONTIERS
This content downloaded from 194.27.34.118 on Mon, 12 Dec 2016 17:26:58 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
396 THE AMERICAN POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEW
This content downloaded from 194.27.34.118 on Mon, 12 Dec 2016 17:26:58 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
GEOGRAPHIC OBJECTIVES IN FOREIGN POLICY 397
This content downloaded from 194.27.34.118 on Mon, 12 Dec 2016 17:26:58 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
398 THE AMERICAN POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEW
This content downloaded from 194.27.34.118 on Mon, 12 Dec 2016 17:26:58 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
GEOGRAPITC OBJECTIVnS IN FORnIGN POLICY 399
This content downloaded from 194.27.34.118 on Mon, 12 Dec 2016 17:26:58 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
400 THE AMERICAN POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEW
This content downloaded from 194.27.34.118 on Mon, 12 Dec 2016 17:26:58 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
GEOGRAPHIC OBJECTIVES IN FOREIGN POLICY 401
Congo and the Ubangi mark most of the frontier between French
West Africa and the Belgian Congo, and the Ruvuma separates
Tanganyika from Mozambique. Russia has many miles of river
boundary, for the Dniester, the Oxus, the Arares, the Ussuri, and
the Amur all flow along various sections of her long frontiers. It
is significant, however, that these boundaries have practically all
been established recently, and that on many of them, especially
in the Far East, there continue to be frontier incidents-all of
which suggests that the Russian frontiers may not be very per-
manently fixed. The other Asiatic river boundary, the Mekong,
which separates French Indo-China and Siam, gives promise of
being permanent because, flowing at the bottom of a deep gorge,
it presents a genuine obstacle to movement. Certainly the Drava,
which marks the border between Hungary and Yugoslavia for a
distance of about one hundred miles, and the Danube, which flows
along the Rumanian-Bulgarian and part of the Rumanian-Yugo-
slavian borders, are neither strategic nor economic boundaries.
Another frontier that has been the constant goal of many states
is the seacoast. Like a river, the coast sets no real limit to expan-
sion, for the tendency of states to expand across inland and mar-
ginal seas to the opposite coast indicates that the mere arrival of
a state at the coast does not mean that it has reached a natural
stopping point in its territorial development. Access to the sea
has been such a universal objective in the foreign policy of states
that it seems to merit detailed consideration as a specialized form
of expansion. It will, therefore, be discussed later in connection
with other special forms of expansion.
Forests, swamps, and deserts, which provided genuine protection
in days of primitive technology and communication systems, were
ideally suited to function as zones of isolation, but have seldom
been sought as frontiers by modern states. Of all the so-called
natural frontiers which have been desired by states, the only one
which has retained much of its protective value is a high mountain
range, which still makes movement definitely difficult and there-
fore facilitates defense. Mountains are not absolute barriers to
movements, as the emergence of many pass-states has proved; but
they hamper movement and provide a barrier zone in which it is
comparatively easy to draw as the boundary the line of the peaks
or that of the watershed. These two lines will not necessarily
coincide, but their divergence will create a problem of only minor
This content downloaded from 194.27.34.118 on Mon, 12 Dec 2016 17:26:58 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
402 THE AMERICAN POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEW
This content downloaded from 194.27.34.118 on Mon, 12 Dec 2016 17:26:58 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
GEOGRAPHIC OBJECTIVES IN FOREIGN POLICY 403
8 Note also that the same bridgehead can be an offensive position for one state,
but a defensive position for the other. Already in 1697 Ludwig von Baden said of
Strassburg: "Fur Deutschland dient diese Stadt zu nichts anderem als einer stindi-
gen Versicherung des Friedens, fMr Frankreich aber ist sie eine immerfort aufste-
hende Kriegspforte, woraus es, so oft es nur will, in das platte Land vorbrechen
kann." Quoted in Richard Hennig, Geopolitik (Leipzig, 1931), p. 140. In this con-
nection it is interesting to note that the foreign concessions in China have been
used as bridgeheads for military operations in the interior by the Western powers
and Japan.
This content downloaded from 194.27.34.118 on Mon, 12 Dec 2016 17:26:58 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
404 THE AMERICAN POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEW
This content downloaded from 194.27.34.118 on Mon, 12 Dec 2016 17:26:58 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
GEOGRAPHIC OBJECTIVES IN FOREIGN POLICY 405
This content downloaded from 194.27.34.118 on Mon, 12 Dec 2016 17:26:58 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
406 THE AMERICAN POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEW
first and defined the territory west of the Menam and the Gulf of
Siam as in the British sphere of influence and the territory east of
these lines as in the French sphere. After the War, the full inde-
pendence of Siam was recognized.
In northeastern Asia, the constant expansion of Russia and
Japan has called into being a series of buffer states. Japan at-
tempted to make Korea an independent buffer state between
herself and China, until the Sino-Japanese war definitely ended
Chinese influence in the peninsula. During the next ten years,
Korea served as a buffer between Russia and Japan, but after
Japan defeated Russia was incorporated into the Japanese empire.
Manchuria then became the Russo-Japanese buffer. In 1932, as
the Japanese advance continued, Inner Mongolia replaced Man-
churia in this capacity, and in 1936 Outer Mongolia in turn
assumed the r6le.
We have already noted that the phenomenon of expansion as
such has not yet appeared in South America. The type of situation
which leads to the creation of a buffer state has therefore arisen
but rarely, and Uruguay, whose independence was recognized by
Argentina and Brazil and guaranteed by Great Britain in 1828,
is the only buffer on the continent. The African continent, like
eastern Asia, affords a striking example of a buffer that ultimately
failed to function because of too great pressure from one side and
none from the other direction to counteract it. The Congo still
separates England and France in central Africa, but Ethiopia,
which once stood between England, France, and Italy, has been
absorbed because a buffer state can fulfill its function only when it
lies between two or more states of approximately equal strength,
and the pressure of Italian expansion had become overwhelmingly
stronger than the opposing French or British pressure.
It is interesting to recall that the buffer state is not a nineteenth-
century invention. To mention but two early examples-in the
fifteenth century B.C. the Mitannian king attempted to re-create
the kingdom of Kadesh as a buffer between himself and Egypt,
and fifteen hundred years later Pompey tried to use Syria to check
the expansion of Iran.10
From the point of view of location, a distinction may be drawn
between buffer states which separate two land powers and those
10 Cf. James H. Breasted, A History of Egypt (London, 1912), p. 285, and
Michael Rostovtzeff, Caravan Cities (London, 1932), p. 101.
This content downloaded from 194.27.34.118 on Mon, 12 Dec 2016 17:26:58 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
GEOGRAPHIC OBJECTIVES IN FOREIGN POLICY 407
which stand between a land power and a sea power, and whose
function is to bar the land power from the ocean and thus prevent
a conflict. In the latter case, the buffer may or may not occupy a
central position between the two strong powers that it separates.
Belgium and Holland, which keep Germany from the coast op-
posite Great Britain, lie directly between the two; but Persia,
whose function is to keep Russia from the Persian Gulf as well as
from India, does not occupy a central position between Great
Britain and Russia. Rumania and Bulgaria did not anywhere
touch British territory, but in so far as they were created to bar to
Russia the road to Constantinople, and so prevent a Russo-British
conflict, they functioned as buffer states-as did Turkey during
the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries when Great Britain
supported her to keep Constantinople out of Russian hands. So it
appears that, when one of the strong powers concerned is a sea
power, a buffer state may lie directly between its territory and
that of a land power or merely between the land power and the
sea, access to which would bring the land power into conflict with
the sea power.
A buffer state is particularly effective if, due to topography or
general lack of technical development, it functions as a genuine
barrier to communication. In 1932, Albania was the only European
state that had no railroad, and by that token was an ideal buffer.
Afghanistan is without railroads and with very few roads in any
way suitable for armies or the movement of material, and accord-
ingly an effective attack from Russia against Kabul or Kandahar
is practically impossible. The Afghan climate, which has taken toll
of every Occidental invader, also acts as a barrier. Thibet is like-
wise without communication systems, and until 1914 there was
no railroad in Persia except a local one near Teheran. On the
other hand, Belgium, although a buffer state, is by topography and
location essentially a passage state and not a barrier state. It is
the political factor rather than the geographic, therefore, that is
responsible for her continued existence.
As time goes on, however, systems of communication will de-
velop in the most backward of the barrier states regardless of
attempts of the great powers to delay such progress and retain
the states as perfect buffers. When this development comes, the
great powers concerned will immediately become competitors in
attempts to cause the construction of systems of communication
This content downloaded from 194.27.34.118 on Mon, 12 Dec 2016 17:26:58 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
408 THE AMERICAN POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEW
This content downloaded from 194.27.34.118 on Mon, 12 Dec 2016 17:26:58 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
GEOGRAPHIC OBJECTIVES IN FOREIGN POLICY 409
This content downloaded from 194.27.34.118 on Mon, 12 Dec 2016 17:26:58 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
410 THE AMERICAN POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEW
This content downloaded from 194.27.34.118 on Mon, 12 Dec 2016 17:26:58 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms