Mancke Flashcards
Mancke argues that the process of early modern European expansion led to the ‘politicisation of oceanic space’. What exactly does she mean by ‘politicisation’?
Mancke argues that the process of early modern European expansion led to the ‘politicization of oceanic space’ by emphasizing the significance of control and regulation of the world’s oceans as a fundamental part of European empire building. This politicization involved the establishment of new international relationships and the need for European powers to define the legal and diplomatic implications of interstate conflict in the extraterritorial arena of the high seas. In essence, the concept of ‘politicization’ refers to the transformation of oceanic space into a highly contested and regulated area, where European powers vied for control and dominance through trade, colonization, and the assertion of sovereignty over maritime trade routes.
Why does she argue that the oceanic space was so critical to early modern European imperialism?
Firstly, Mancke asserts that European dominance in oceanic space, rather than terrestrial dominance, characterized early modern European empires, particularly in relation to Africa and Asia. European terrestrial control in Africa and Asia was relatively brief. In many places it lasted a century or less, testimony to our need to see the political ascendancy of Europe in the world as an oceanic phenomenon. This control of oceanic space contributed to the ability of Europeans to build land-based empires in Asia and Africa in the nineteenth century.
Additionally, the control of oceanic space was a fundamental part of European empire building and remained a critical component of continued European and neo-European dominance in the postcolonial world. Oceanic expansion opened up new opportunities for weaker polities to realign the balance of power within Europe and with its Muslim neighbours, achieved as much through control of the maritime environment as with territorial acquisitions in Africa, Asia, and the Americas. The oceanic expansion reconfigured international relations, obliging expansionist powers to define the legal and diplomatic implications of interstate conflict in the extraterritorial arena of the high seas. This ultimately elevated interstate relations in Europe from a regional system to a global one, which came to define contemporary international relations.
Lastly, Power/ money derived from trade which allows Europe to have the wealth to assert power.
Overall, Mancke argues that the oceanic space was critical to early modern European imperialism due to its role in shaping international relations, defining power dynamics, and contributing to the construction of European empires.
How did this shift to oceanic space differ from earlier European presence in global political and economic processes?
The shift in European presence in global political and economic processes differed from earlier European presence in that it marked the politicization of oceanic space.
Prior to this shift, European control was primarily focused on littoral or easily accessible areas near ports. The open oceans were not militarized and were largely known and traversed by sailors for centuries. Africans controlled the production and marketing of goods (including slaves), to which Europeans gained access at a few important trading centres.
The land-based empires bordering the Indian Ocean did not have navies, and the waters were relatively unmilitarized zones.
However, with the success of new maritime ventures, the Portuguese and Spanish agreed to the 1494 Treaty of Tordesillas, which divided the non-Christian world between themselves.
This marked a new international order that took most of three centuries to sort out. The Portuguese also entered the Indian Ocean, where they claimed sovereignty and set as their objective the licensing of travel on maritime trade routes, a politicization of oceanic space that had no equivalent in Asian practice.
This shift in European presence marked the construction of a new kind of empire that differed significantly from land-based ones and forced the reconfiguration of international relations, elevating interstate relations in Europe from a regional system to a global one.
What was the consequence of this ‘politicization’ beyond Europe?
The politicization of oceanic space had consequences beyond Europe, particularly in relation to the international relationships and power dynamics in other parts of the world. The control of oceanic space by European powers reconfigured international relations, obliging expansionist powers to define the legal and diplomatic implications of interstate conflict in the extraterritorial arena of the high seas. This elevation of interstate relations in Europe from a regional system to a global one came to define contemporary international relations.
Additionally, the rise of new powers in the late nineteenth century, such as Germany and Japan, further intensified the competition for oceanic control, leading to an arms race with naval capacity as a centerpiece and continued to define relations among the great powers. The ascendancy of oceanic control as a defining characteristic of power among European states and then throughout the world was more than three centuries in developing, and it had a significant impact on the balance of power and the construction of power in the global state system.
