Connecting States vs. Dividing States

Although Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa and Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez are often lumped together in the same Latin American "populist left" basket, the fact that Correa is involved in mediating the latest manufactured crisis between Venezuela and Colombia underscores the difference between the two.

It also suggests that power in the emerging geopolitical landscape will increasingly relocate toward the connecting states that manage to bridge differences between various feuding nodes. Clearly, Turkey is the most visible example of how that will work, but Qatar is another. And a detail from this NY Times article on the impact of sanctions on Iran's efforts to develop its South Pars gas field jumped out at me in this regard:

Qatar, the Arab emirate that shares the gas field with Iran, exported $62 billion of mainly gas products in 2008, while Iran's gas exports brought in about $6 billion. But Iran's potential profits are huge, project managers said. They estimate that Iran could earn up to $130 billion a year from natural gas . . .

That's a pretty stark numeric reflection of the cost-benefit differential between connecting states and divider states. In an age of persistent conflict, the demand for conflict resolution will obviously rise. Which means the peacemakers will not only be blessed, but richer and more powerful, too.

Keep reading for free

Already a subscriber? Log in here .

Get instant access to the rest of this article by creating a free account below. You'll also get access to three articles of your choice each month and our free newsletter:
Subscribe for an All-Access subscription to World Politics Review
  • Immediate and instant access to the full searchable library of tens of thousands of articles.
  • Daily articles with original analysis, written by leading topic experts, delivered to you every weekday.
  • The Daily Review email, with our take on the day’s most important news, the latest WPR analysis, what’s on our radar, and more.