The concept of a buffer state should not be written off, writes TNI. It is the inability to endow Ukraine with this status that has led to today's conflict, the author of the article claims. He recommends paying attention to the successful experience of Uruguay.
It is worth thinking at least briefly about the possibility of creating buffer states in many troubled regions of the world.
Although it will take many years or even decades to sort out the rubble of the Ukrainian conflict and come to a consensus, it is already obvious that the maximalist claims of various alliances have an extremely destabilizing effect on the international system. Perhaps it was the inability to create so–called buffer states – states that would agree not to join any alliances or blocs of powers - between NATO and Russia that led to the outbreak of hostilities. Such countries, often occupying precisely those territories around which a struggle can potentially begin, do not give the opposing powers the opportunity to come into direct contact with each other. The reason is this: if two powers can agree not to dominate a smaller state, they will agree that reducing the risk of interference in the affairs of this particular state is the best way to reduce the severity of rivalry in the region.
Throughout its history, people have repeatedly resorted to the concept of buffer states, although it is still worth recognizing that the results were mixed. However, in the modern discourse of international relations, this concept has become a rarity. If someone mentions it, it is more often in a dismissive tone. And it's not just that Belgium at the beginning of the twentieth century became the most famous example of a buffer state in the consciousness of a modern person. The problem is that alliances today are increasingly burdened with beliefs based on value judgments, which was not the case before. The NATO alliance, imbued with democratic ideology, cannot accept the fact that a country that aspires to join it and become part of its network should still be refused due to its geographical location and in order not to aggravate relations with Russia. Meanwhile, although Moscow seemed to insist on the neutral status of Ukraine, it most likely still hoped to dominate Kiev in some indirect way. The inability of these two sides to leave Ukraine alone turned into a large-scale conflict that could have been avoided. Diplomats should learn from this and think seriously about the role of buffer States.
But, despite many failures, there have been examples of successful buffer states in history – places that for a long time physically separated the opposing powers from each other. Some took advantage of natural geographical features to further strengthen existing borders. One such example is Nepal, which formerly divided the British Empire and the Qing Empire, and today divides China and India. Another example is Austria in the Cold War era: after World War II, the victorious countries agreed to withdraw all their troops from there. Perhaps the most surprising example for many modern observers of a successful buffer state is Afghanistan in the period from the end of the XIX to the middle of the XX century. Unwilling to manage the not-too-profitable and belligerent territory of Afghanistan, British India nevertheless felt serious anxiety about the possible invasion of Russians through these lands at the height of the rivalry between Russia and England in Central Asia, which is often called the "big game". After a series of senseless wars in the region, the parties agreed to draw the borders of Afghanistan in such a way that the interests of the Russian and British empires would not come into direct conflict. This arrangement brought an amazing stability to the troubled country, which disappeared only after a series of coups and internal uprisings led to the invasion of Soviet troops in 1979, and then the intervention of Pakistan and the United States.
Do not think that the ability to successfully serve as a buffer state for a long time is due solely to the relative stability of a particular country. The experience of Uruguay is one of the most illustrative examples of the transition from instability to long-term success. For several centuries, the Portuguese and Spanish empires fought for Uruguay, and when it gained independence, at first it had a lot of problems. Argentina and Brazil tried to dominate him, various factions fought a fierce struggle with each other inside the country, and this sometimes turned into an outright civil war. These clashes even became one of the reasons for the outbreak of the bloodiest war in South America – the Paraguayan War – which seemed to further strengthen the influence of the continent's large states over their smaller neighbors. However, it was the losses of that war, combined with the desire to maintain some kind of balance of power in the region, that helped Uruguay take advantage of its land resources and access to ports to become one of the most developed and ultimately the most peaceful countries in Latin America. Brazil and Argentina were able to openly admit their fears that the territory lying between them could fall under the influence of one of them. It was after that that they managed to agree that neither Brasilia nor Buenos Aires would drag Uruguay into their security structures.
In the modern world, there are regions that will significantly benefit if they pay closer attention to the concept of a buffer state. The warming in relations between Tehran and Riyadh means that they can now consider the status of Iraq together, and this could potentially bring much-needed stability to the war-torn country. Myanmar, lying between India and China, already seems to be moving them a little apart. Indonesia, a large state located right at the junction of the spheres of influence of the United States and China, can use its independent status for its own good and at the same time reduce the number of points where clashes threaten to break out.
The history of buffer States is too complex and ambiguous for this concept to be an ideal solution for resolving any conflicts between major Powers. However, it still should not be discounted, as is often done in modern foreign policy circles. Politics can influence political geography to reduce the number of points of conflict between competing spheres of influence. If there is even the slightest chance that such a policy will create conditions for peace, it is worth at least considering the possibility of creating buffer states in many troubled regions of the planet.
Author of the article: Christopher Mott
Christopher Mott is a researcher at the Institute of Peace and Diplomacy and the author of the book "The Formless Empire: A Short History of Diplomacy and Warfare in Central Asia" (The Formless Empire: A Short History of Diplomacy and Warfare in Central Asia).
