geography and politics

7/28/2019 Geography and Politics

1/8

Geography and PoliticsAuthor(s): Baroness J. YoungReviewed work(s):Source: Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, New Series, Vol. 12, No. 4 (1987),pp. 391-397

Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of The Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute ofBritish Geographers)Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/622791 .

Accessed: 29/06/2012 00:11

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.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 [email protected].

.

Blackwell Publishing and The Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British Geographers) are

collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Transactions of the Institute of BritishGeographers.
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=blackhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=rgshttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=rgshttp://www.jstor.org/stable/622791?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/622791?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=rgshttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=rgshttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black


2/8

391

Geography a n d P o l i t i c sBARONESS J. YOUNGMinisterof State,Foreign nd CommonwealthOffice,London W1 2AH(Third Mackinder lecture delivered in the School of Geography 3 February 1987 to celebrate thecentenary of the first Readership in Geography in Oxford, 1887)RevisedMS received 4 April,1987ABSTRACTPoliticsandgeographyare nter-twined ecausegeographicalmagesandrelationshipsnter ntopoliticalanguage.Anation's eographyaffects ts view of itselfand ts view of the world.Politiciansndpolitical ecisionsmust akeaccountnotonlyofpeople,butalsotechnologyandnatural esources. onsequently,hereneeds o beagreaternterplay etweengeographers ndpoliticians.KEYWORDS:Politics,Resources, echnology,Self-images

Foreign Office Ministersusuallyprefera general titlefor a speech. Something like 'Peace'; or, perhaps,'Democracy'. The bolder souls among us even ven-ture into such dangerous and controversial territoryas 'Peace and Democracy'. But we normally like toavoid a precise or over-specific title, such as 'BritishForeign Policy': it is either too limiting-or far toomisleading!But by any standards the title of my talk today,'Geography and Politics',is broadenough. Ifyou willforgive the pun, what on earth to say? And what inthe world to leave out? Human history itself is allabout the changing patterns of human response toour physical surroundings and natural resources-the soil, animal and plant life-and how we haveexploited them;andwhat we have done to overcomeor take advantage of majornaturalobstacles, rivers,canyons and mountains.So politics and geography are inevitably andirrevocably inter-twined. This is not to definegeography in an obvious, rather narrow sense. Iknow that the subject has changed from the largelydescriptiveandmappingactivities of the firstmodemgeographers in the last century; geography hasexpanded in all directions. We now understand newrelationships,new chainsof causeand effect. It is hardto draw clearlines between geography, climatology,ecology, agriculture and conservation. The basictheme linking these subjects is the impact of human

activities on our naturalsurroundings,and vice versa.And as the world gets more crowded, and tech-nology enables us to change our environment onever-largerscales, the role for political advisers withgood backgrounds n geographical sciences can onlygrow. This should lead to good long-term prospectsfor geography graduates!

It is not surprisingthat geographical images haveentered our political language-and therefore shapeour thinking.Forexample, the phrase'North-South'.Some people use the label 'North-South divide' todescriberegionaldisparities nBritain. ntheEuropeanCommunitywe argueaboutcompeting North/Southclaims on agricultural ubsidies and industrial nvest-ment strategies,as between the northernCommunitycountriesand theirMediterraneanpartners.And at aglobal level internationaldevelopment problems areoften described as 'North/South' issues. There is notonly North/South. There is East/West. Despite thephysical facts of the matter,we in the Foreign Officeponderover evidence that EastandWest are'movingcloser together';or that the Atlanticis 'getting wider';or that Britain s 'nearer'America than Europe.And,of course, we bum a lot of energy, maybe too muchsometimes, either at 'summits' or trying to reachthem!These arefamiliareveryday political images. Yet Iwonder whether they can not be positively mislead-ing. For example, take the so-called North/South

Trans. nst. Br.Geogr.N.S. 12: 391-397 (1987) ISSN:0020-2754 PrintednGreatBritain


3/8

BARONESS.YOUNGdivide in Britain.Is it a question of geography, or aquestionof attitudes? t is undoubtedly truethat thereare some severely depressed areas in the North ofBritain however 'North' is defined).But it is not truethat they are depressed only because hey are in theNorth.It is all too easy forpoliticalrhetoric to run the firstproposition into the second. And this does no-oneany good. It tends to breed fatalism if not despairinpeople in poor Northern areas. It gives no credit tothose people in the North who are doing well-andthere are some very successful areas there. It alsodistractsattention from economically deprived areaselsewhere in the country. This is not just a semanticpoint. How we define or describethe problemshapesour answers to it. Is it better for government to con-centrateits investment on buildingup the depressedareas hemselves, with new infrastructure, ew physi-cal capital?Or is it wise in the long term to investmainly in the people n those areaswith new trainingfacilities,grants for smallbusinesses and so on?Governments of different political complexionshere and abroad have wrestled with these basicquestions for decades. Indeed, in one form or otherthey apply to the North/South questions within theEuropeanCommunity and the global North/Southissues mentioned earlier.Do not expect me to answer these questions,but Imention them simply to show that our languageaffects ourview of the world and of ourselves. 'North'and 'South' are neat, self-excluding categories. Theylend themselves well to politicalrhetoric,to claims ofclearanalysisand simplesolutions.And thus they cantrickus into identifying facts with assumptions.All this goes to show that the ways in whichGeography andPolitics overlap aremany and subtle,and rathertoo much for one talk.So today I proposeto offer some general thoughts under three broadheadings:I. how a nation's geography affects its view ofitself

2. how new technology is transforming inter-national use of resources,and3. looking ahead, how geographers and poli-ticians will have more and more to talk about.

A NATION'S GEOGRAPHY AND ITS SELF-IMAGEOne of the most fascinatinggeographicaltheories forthe layman is continental drift: the idea that theworld's land surfaces were once joined together in

completely different formations but that the move-ment of vast plates has createdthe map of the worldwe know today. That process has taken millions ofyears. Butwhat would happen if it suddenly speededup?Suppose that over the next few years the UnitedStates drifted over to nestle up against the SovietUnion; that South Africa burrowed northwards andhadAfricancountries on all sides;or thatSwitzerlandeased itselfdown the MediterraneanandItalymovednorthwards, osing its coastline.No doubt these movements would be accom-panied by a certain degree of practical physicalupheaval! But what of their implications for thepoliticalpsychology of the countriesinvolved?The Americans and the Russians could still bebitter adversaries, ut they would also now be neigh-bours,with all the problems-and opportunities-which that relationshipimplies. The whites in SouthAfricalikewise would find itmuchharder o maintaintheir isolationist mentality and policies. And theSwiss would lose the security of their surroundingmountains, while the cooler climate of NorthernEurope could have drastic consequences for thecharacterand reputationof Mediterraneans.All this is, to say the least, improbable.We findthe very idea comic. But why? Not just because it isphysically impossible. Mainly because we simplycan't imagine the Italiansbeing northernEuropeans,or the Swiss being Mediterranean,or the Americansbeing simply one part of a great land mass: thesepeople simply wouldn't be 'Italian' or 'Swiss', or'American'any more!What does this show? Not, of course, that we areall the result of some sort of geographical determin-ism,that the nationalcharacteristics f any people areinevitably and exclusively moulded by the physicalsize and location of the land in which they live. Thatoverstates the case. Instead, my fanciful examplemerely brings out the more modest thought that thecultural identities of different countries-and hencetheir political identities-are defined partly in termsof theirphysical place in the world.OurselvesHow does this apply to the United Kingdom?Whatever the politicalcreed of any country'sleaders,whatever plans they have, they start where theirpredecessors stopped, with a packagecomprisingnotonly the actual location of the country and its physi-cal resources,but also the stock of skills,beliefs andexpectations acquiredover centuries by its presentpopulation.

392


4/8

continuing argumentsabout the Channel Fixed Link,or the glee with which the popular press reportsrowswith the Frenchover lamb deliveriesor ferryservices,one sometimes wonders if it has changed at all!Our historically stormy relationshipwith Europeand our maritime skills contributed to the earlydevelopment of Britainas the world's leading tradingpower. We certainly looked outwards, away fromEurope for trade, setting up trading networks thateventually spanned the world, from China toColombia, New Orleans to New Zealand,Miami toMadagascar.Much of our trade developed with theAmericans.Now there is a boom on partsof Britain'seast coast as trading and other links with Europesurge ahead.Thisneatly reflectswhat was happeningtwo centuries ago as Bristol, Manchester andLiverpool grew on westward-looking trade.

In short, Britishforeign policy has long reflectedthis wider culturalambivalence towards Europe,thisfeeling of being at once part of, but always separatefrom, the ideas and values of the Continental main-land. This ambivalence towards Europehas also, par-ticularlysince World War II been reinforcedby thestrong culturaland politicalpull of the United States.However, under the impact of our EuropeanCommunitymembershipwe arenow, perhapsfor thefirst time in our history, starting to look actively toEuropefor tradingand political partnerships.This isan enormous change. And the British public are atlong last getting used to Europe. We even seeadvertisements on BritishTV in foreign languages:VorsprungdurchTechnik!'Europe'meanssomethingpositive, something new, something growing.Nonetheless, the tension between the 'European'and 'Atlanticist'views of Britain'srole still persists.We ourselves encourage it. We still tend to see our-selves as uniquely qualified, if only for linguisticreasons, to act as a 'bridge'between Europeand theUnited States (even though others may see us as aself-appointed punch-bag, absorbing heavy blowsfrom both sides!).But one way or the other, the ten-sion shows through in the ebb and flow of debate onmany differentquestions in public life. To take a fewexamples of the past year: the Westland affair;theAmerican raid on Libya;the recent EC trade disputewith the Americans over gin and other products,andthe question of Trident and Britain's independentnucleardeterrent.

These are all recent examples. Each n their differ-ent way shows that there are two 'pulls'on Britishpolicy, one towards America, the other towardsEurope.The fact that on issues such as these there is

So whoever wins our next election will assumethepolitical leadershipof a ratheroddly-shaped group ofislands off the northern coast of Europe. Our totalarea is 241 000 km2: about the size of Ghana buttwice the size of Cuba;one-third the size of Texas;one-tenth the size of Sudan;one fortieththe size ofCanada.We have a gentle climate-well, most of thetime!-and are relatively well-off in terms of basicnaturalresourcesof energy reserves and good farm-ing land. About 56 million people live here, whichmeans that compared,again, to Ghana,Cuba,Texas,Sudan or Canadawe are crammed n like sardines!

How has the most obvious geographicalfeatureofthe United Kingdom(our slandstatus) nfluencedourpolitics?Firstand foremost, the large moat roundourislands has been a crucial factor in our nationaldefence: there can't be many countries in the worldwhich have not sufferedforeign invasion since 1066!It is, of course, not easy to prove the effects of ourrelative security from outside attack on our politicalculture.Butover the centuries t has certainlyallowedthe gradualdevelopment of institutions ndassociatedtraditions-the Monarchy, Parliament, ndependentjudiciary-which are as important and respected asever. We have had the chance to develop a culturalrespect for and appreciationof the law, public order,effective administrationand honesty in government,which other countries with insecure borders andpolitical systems have sorely missed.

Second, we alllearnat school of Britain'sgreat sea-faring traditions. Nowhere in Britain is more thanabout 70 miles from the sea and, not surprisingly,attitudes to the sea have influenced our politics. Thisstill applies.Whatever the militaryor technicalargu-ments in favour of reorganizing defence spending innew ways, popular support for the Royal Navy runsdeep. Our historicalmaritimepre-eminencealso gaveus good practical grounds for arguing in favour offreedom of shipping on the high seas and againstprotectionism in shipping trade. We remain one ofthe staunchestinternationalupholdersof this import-ant principletoday. And our maritimepre-eminenceenabled us to discover, build andmaintainan empire.Needless to say, our island status has also influ-enced our attitudes to our Europeanneighbours. Forcenturies, right into this century and in the lifetimeof many of us here today, the threat to our nationalsecurity usually came from our closest Europeanneighbours:Spain,France,Holland, Germany.So wehave had good reason to be wary and distrustful ofour fellow Europeans.Again, this attitude goes deepand changes only slowly-indeed, judging by the

Geography ndPolitics 393


5/8

BARONESS YOUNGusuallydisagreementwithinour variouspoliticalpar-ties as well as betweenthem brings out my pointclearly: this ambivalence is a culturalas well as an'ideological' uestion, and it stems directly from theway our geography and history have interacted.

One finalexamplereinforces hispoint. Forcentur-ies our island status has fixed in our politicalcultureafirmpreferencefor markets and trading.So far,therehas been little practicaldisagreementover the yearsbetween UK political partiesover the importancetothe UK of a world trading system that is as free aspossible. Of course, there have been periodicdemands for protectionist measures but they havecropped up within differentparties.They have nevertaken root, thank goodness, not least because theBritishpublic are well aware that the UK lives bytrading (whether in goods or, increasingly, inservices)and has to 'pay its way in the world'.So much for the impact of our geographicalposition on our underlying political attitudes andassumptions.What about other countries?OthercountriesNeedless to say, every countryis different. tdoes notfollow that island peoples are all going to behave aswe do. Take the Japanese-far from adopting anoutward-looking tradingmentality, for long periodsin theirhistory they have pursuedextreme isolation-ist policies. Despite their remarkabletrading powertoday, their cultural suspicion of foreigners andprotectionist attitudes are still evident.But I would like to say a word about the twosuperpowersand theirgeography.First, he United States.We all know of the internaldynamismof the United States basedon the physicalscope thatcountryhashistoricallyofferedforrestless,pioneering concepts of freedom. This cultural tra-dition hasgiven free rein to the energetic exploitationof America'snaturalresources,so enablingthe UnitedStates to become the global power in political,economic andmilitarytermsthat we see today.Yet its geographic position in the world has, onceagain, introduced various tensions into Americanforeign policy. They remainalive today. Forexample,there is the political ambivalence about the defenceof America and American interests. If America hasglobal trading,politicaland strategicinterestshow isthe line to be drawn in defending them? Does thedefence of Americastart in the Gulf,on the Rhine,inCubaor actually on the US seaboard?The capitalofNicaragua s as close to policy-makers nWashingtonas is Phoenix, Arizona, hence public anxiety in the

United States about Communist subversion inCentralAmerica,'America'sbackyard'.In another sense, just as Britainis subject to the'pull'of both America and Europe,the United Statesfeels the pull of Europe and the FarEast. There hasbeen plenty of debate about the 'Pacific drift' ofAmericanpolicy as the economic centreof gravity inthe United States has shifted westwards to Californiaand southwards-we are told for instance thatFloridawill be the third most populated state by theyear 2000. Nonetheless there are 300 000 US forcesstationed in Europe, making a majorcontributiontoour defence. The United States political and militarycommitment to the defence of Europeand to NATOremains solid, but European policy-makers can notafford to take it for granted.Security considerations again affect the UnitedStates' relations with its two neighbours,CanadaandMexico. These borders are long and effectivelyimpossible to defend. This and the historicalpowerimbalancebetween the United States and its neigh-bours have made for traditionally prickly relation-ships:today US/Mexico relations are at rather a lowpoint because of the ease with which illegal immi-grants and drugs arecrossing into America;and US/Canada trade questions are a continuing source offriction.

Finally,a word about America'seconomic policies.The United State's cultural propensity for 'self-reliance' and, in particular, its enormous naturalwealth have meant that it has never hadBritain'sdeepcommitment to Free Trade: it has never needed it.Quite the reverse-isolationist or protectionistattitudes combine with constant complaints aboutunfairforeign competition to give America'stradingpartnersa hard time!The US budget deficit is behindthe latest surgeof protectionistdemandsin Congress,so is the fact that it is a novel experience for theAmericansto see US companies and buildings beingbought up by Japanese-and British!-investors.One way or the other, we must all hope that thesettlement of the latest EC/US trade quarrelsets agood precedent for keeping America's traditionalprotectionist instincts at bay!The Soviet Union is by far the world's largestcountry, with an area of over 22 million km2-it is92-5 times the size of Great Britain! It has a vastwealth of naturalresources. Yet Russian eadershavehistorically been isolated politically and culturallyfrom Europe. Since 1917 the Marxist Governmenthas repudiated the market and personal economicfreedom.This has created a society highly inefficient

394


6/8

either the natural or human resources available tothem!The old-fashioned answer to this problemwasto grab the resources of one's neighbours, either byannexing theirterritorycompletely or by subjugatingthe people on it to gain control over theireconomicactivity. More recently we have realized that trade,scientific research, more efficient working-practicesand simply good old hard work can all, if rightlyapplied,enhancethe value a nation'sexisting stock ofits naturalresources.

This in turn has brought us to the true economicrevolution of the twentieth century namely therealizationthat a relative absenceof naturalresourcesneed not stop a people or a country from becomingrich! The contrast between Japanor South Korea orHong Kong on the one hand,and the Soviet Union onthe other speaks for itself. What counts is not somuch what natural resources a country physicallypossesses, but the way its natural and especiallyhumanresourcesaremobilized and motivated.In short, the whole historicalprocess of industrial-ization is now entering a new phase as rapid com-munications and computer technology break downthe previously essential links between manufacturingsites andphysicalresources.It no longer makesmuchdifference in terms of resources where a multi-nationalfirm sites a car-buildingplant:what counts isthe skill and reliabilityof the work-forceand the waythe total cost of the operation is assessed (wages, taxincentives, regional grants etc). The actual steel,plastic, rubber and glass that make up the cars aresimply shipped to wherever the factory is!What all this adds up to is this: eachnation'spoliti-cal assessments of its comparative advantage inworld trade s now far, arharder.Thisposes immensepracticalproblems for politicians.It means that theyhave to look at national resources in a totally newway.One example from recent British political lifeshould make the point. Coal-mining is a typicalexample of an industrywhich is self-evidently tied tothe physical location of a naturalresource.We cannotmine coal in partsof the world where labour is cheapif the coal is not there in the ground. Yet, as otherenergy sources become cheaper coal becomes rela-tively less attractive. However, as we have seen,passions run very high indeed over the closure of'uneconomic'pits. Thereis constant pressurefor newinvestment in such pits to make them 'economic'again.Yet in today's world the intelligent calculationis notsimply the straightdifferencebetween the costto the Goverment of new investment to keep the pit

at all levels. It is truly extraordinary, not to saydepressing, that 70 years after the RevolutionRussiansare still obliged to queue for hours for basichousehold goods.Maybe this ought not to be so surprising.After all,one problem with runningthe largest country in theworld is the constant need to worry about defendingit, or simply keeping it together. Hence Sovietleaders' obsession with military spending and theirpermanent anxieties about security along theirextended borders,which stretch from Finlandroundthrough Europeto Turkey, to Iranand Afghanistan,round to China and Japan. There are no obviousphysical boundaries to define most of the SovietUnion's borders. All the Soviet Union can do is tomaintainenormous defence forces and hope to deterits many neighbours from causing trouble.

The Soviet Union's culturaltradition of isolationfrom the outside world also plays a major part inreinforcing ts suspicions about the rest of the world.As Mr Gorbachev is fast discovering, if the SovietUnion and its EasternEuropeansatellites are not tofall irreversibly behind in the modern world indeveloping and using new technology there is littleoption but to open up Soviet society to new ideas.But the new breaths of fresh air and freedom which asustained policy of 'openness' (glasnost) mplies arebound to be highly unsettling to many sections ofthe Soviet establishment. It remains to be seen ifMr Gorbachev can introduce new ideas into hissprawling and profoundly conservative-with asmall 'c'-society!PEOPLE, TECHNOLOGY AND RESOURCESThe Soviet Union's difficulties n absorbingnew tech-nology brings me to my second point, namely thechanging relationship between people, technologyand naturalresources.As I saidearlier,when a new government comes topower they start with what they have. However, theywill probably have been elected to office at least inpartbecausethey have promisedthe electorate to putthe nation's assets to better use than their politicalopponents could do! An all-importantpart of this isdefining the economic framework for using thecountry's naturaland humanresources and supervis-ing trading contacts with other countries:as we allknow, the basic theory of comparative advantagedemonstrates how tradestands to benefit everyone.Of course, there have been plenty of occasions inhistory when leaders have not been satisfied with

Geography ndPolitics 395


7/8

going, and the cost of redundancymoney andwelfarepayments to workers laid off if the pit closes. Insteadpolicy-makershave to look at the opportunity lost ofnot nvesting publicmoney in new industriesand newtechnology.

The bitter miners strike reflected the dilemma Iposed earlierwhen I mentioned North/South issuesin Britain: hould we be investing in physical capital(here,new mines)or in retrainingand humanskills toequipour people with talents to take us into the nextcentury?Of course it is very painfulwhen old com-munities breakup under economic pressurefromout-side, which those affected scarcely comprehend,butthis is now a world-wide phenomenon, and,I believethat we shall all have to get used to it.So the international blurring of the concept ofcomparativeadvantage gives politiciansmany head-aches. How do we organize regional subsidies?Howdo we set up tax and other incentives to encouragebusinesses to invest in Britain?Are we not obliged tostartthinkinghardabout our top tax rates if our bestminds are attracted abroad by countries with lowertaxes? Does it matter f we don't actually makeany-thing any more? Can we live by exporting services,our expertise, our language, our culture and (viatourism) our scenery? Even if economic theorydecides that there is no need for us to makeanythingany more, how do we accustom our people to therevolution this impliesforworking practicesand con-ditions, given our traditional strengths in differentmanufacturing ectors?These arereal-life ssues. Over the next decades wewill see continuing change in many areas of nationaleconomic and political life, as internationalcompeti-tive pressureforces us to become more efficient.Thiswill affect trade unions, universities, banks, localgovernment and national government. Many of thechanges will be painful-it is not only Mr Gorbachevwho has to contend with vested interests!This is not just a problem for Britain. Thedeveloping world has to think hard about what itwants and how it can best mobilize its resources.Yetcultural and ideological ideas of 'self-reliance'fre-quently rundeep, as do fearsof renewed exploitationfromoverseas. However, self-reliance s not reallyanoption in today's world. The key to opening up anation's physical resources is bringing to them theskills of the internationalmarketplace. Self-reliancetaken to extremes leads to ignorance, paranoiaandpoverty: Albaniais the classic example in Europe.Of course,the location of the world'srawmaterialsis not irrelevant.Some areparticularly carce,giving

the countries which control them considerable lever-age. Oil, chromiumandgold are eachgood examples.Nevertheless, technology has away of inventing sub-stitutes for these resources or making existing stockslast longer if suppliesare cut to put pricesup inordin-ately. These fluid international economic relation-ships help to explain why sanctions against SouthAfrica are unlikely to be effective, and why OPECis-temporarily-in the doldrums.Inshort, lack of physical resources is no longer thedominant constraint on development for mostcountries. Localphysical featuresstill,obviously, dic-tate what is basicallypossibleand what is not: no-onewill get rich growing palm-trees in Greenland!Butwhat is sensible s decidedby a combination of humaningenuity and the right incentives. We can thereforeexpect to see a world-wide movement towards de-regulation and privatizationin differentforms as thegrowing importance of human capital necessitatesthe greatest possible flexibility in management andother areas.This is not going to be a smooth ride,but,as far as I can see, it is an inevitableprocess.

GEOGRAPHERS AND POLITICIANS:GROWING DIALOGUE?

A

In the years to come politicians will be looking togeographers for guidance. As our scientific under-standing of the complex relationship between theland and our use of it has developed, our politicaloptions have become less obvious. We now realizethe importance of clean air and clean rivers for ourhealth.We recognize thatcertaintoxic or radioactivesubstances can cause devastating damage to theenvironment if not controlled properly.We now seethe linksbetween carelessfarming echniquesand soilerosion.All this new insight makes life hard for the poli-ticians!They have to try to balance the competinginterests of environmental groups, trade unions,banks, industrialists,and scientists, all of whom canhave a legitimate interest,all of whom see theirpartofthe total pictureas the all-importantpart!This applies in internationalpolitics too. Thereareplenty of examples:(a) Internationalaid experts have argued for yearsabout the environmentalimpactof differenttypes ofcropstrategiesfordeveloping countries,andthe needto counter the spreadof deserts.(b) The countries of Europeare engaged in detaileddiscussions to agree on the different causes of acid

396 BARONESSJ. YOUNG


8/8

so showing that countries with centuries of violentmistrustbetween them can takepractical teps in theirjoint interests. There is also a role for the UnitedNations and its specialized agencies in centralizingexpertiseand raisinginternationalawareness of thesesorts of problems.In otherwords,politicianswill have agrowing needfor expert scientificadvice in future:geographers areparticularlywell-placedto give it. Ihope they will riseto the challenge!CONCLUSIONThere is a lovely little aphorism by the BritishhumoristSaki:

'Happy is the country that has no geography'.Many people no doubt think that 'happy is thecountry that has no politicians'. Be that as it may Ihope that I have been able to show you today thatPolitics and Geography arestuck with each other, forbetter or worse. That is as it should be. We are all inpart a product of our environment. As an Oxfordgraduatemyself, I am the first to admit it!

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTThe author would like to acknowledge the helpreceived from Mr CharlesCrawfordof the PlanningStaff of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office,London.

rain and the best way to reduce it. Not an easy prob-lem: should Britainbe obliged to close down certainpower-stations or alternatively should Germansdrive more slowly?(c)How can the internationalpoaching and tradingofrarespecies of wildlife be stopped?(d) Should the internationalcommunity as a wholehave a say in the fate of the world's great rainforests,particularly the Amazon basin, given their globalenvironmentalimportance?(e) What, if anything, can be done about the phen-omenon of 'ozone-leak' in the Antarcticregion?(f) What would be the long-term environmentalconsequences of the grand Soviet plan to divertvarious northern rivers?And so on.All these issues evidently transcend national bound-ariesandso are not susceptibleto the solutions of anyone country acting on its own. The political problemis that attempts to set up internationalbodies withformalresponsibilitiesin these areasusually founderor take aninordinatelength of time. The most difficultissue is national sovereignty: countries resent othercountries telling them what to do on theirown terri-tory! It is simply not practical politics for us to tryto dictate to the Brazilianshow to look after theirtrees.

Nevertheless, the trend is towards internationalcooperation. The European Community is doingwork that is quite unprecedentedin terms of harmon-izing environmentalpolicies among its own members,

Geogra~phyrnd olitics 397

geography and politics

Documents