1_capitalHumain
π Geopolitics
Do demographics still weigh in on geopolitics?

The weaponisation of demography in geopolitical relations

with Richard Robert, Journalist and Author
On November 24th, 2021 |
3min reading time
Key takeaways
  • For a long time, power was determined by population number; along with GDP per capita, it remains a major determinant.
  • But geopolitics is dynamic: more than absolute figures, there are trends that should be followed.
  • Moreover, power logic is now capital- and technology-intensive, rather than labour-intensive, so the capacity for innovation could weigh in over demographic factors.
  • The theme of “climate migrants” has replaced the “demographic boom” of the 1960s, but so far disruptions have been local rather than geopolitical.
  • On the other hand, the “weaponisation” of migratory movements must be considered carefully because it renews the repertoire of hybrid conflicts.

Inter­na­tio­nal rela­tions play out bet­ween poli­cy­ma­kers. But behind this chess game mar­ked by per­so­na­li­ties, tac­tics, and stra­te­gies of a small num­ber of players, power­ful human dyna­mics are at work. Stu­dy of geo­po­li­tics des­cribes these dyna­mics, lin­ked to human and phy­si­cal geo­gra­phy. Among them, demo­gra­phy has long been iden­ti­fied as a key fac­tor in the rise or fall of a coun­try on the inter­na­tio­nal scene.

Population counts !

For a long time, power was a direct func­tion of popu­la­tion. Napo­leo­nic France was the most popu­lous coun­try in Europe. Ger­ma­ny in the 19th cen­tu­ry also expe­rien­ced popu­la­tion growth, which hel­ped explain its expan­sio­nism bet­ween 1848 and 1945. During the first two decades of the Cold War, the Uni­ted States and the Soviet Union were demo­gra­phic cham­pions : in addi­tion to their popu­la­tion size, they had a strong capa­ci­ty to deve­lop their ‘human capital’.

China’s rapid rise to glo­bal super­po­wer sta­tus is explai­ned by spec­ta­cu­lar growth in GDP per capi­ta, but also by sus­tai­ned popu­la­tion growth, from 590 mil­lion in 1953 (inclu­ding Tai­wan) to 1.4 bil­lion today. India and Chi­na expe­rien­ced a demo­gra­phic tran­si­tion later than the Euro­pean coun­tries, which helps to explain the move­ment of world power towards Asia –emer­ging powers are Asian, and since Oba­ma Ame­ri­can power has been tur­ning towards Asia (from 2011 onwards we speak of a ‘pivot’).

Absolute figures or trends ?

Over the course of the 20th cen­tu­ry, the rela­tion­ship bet­ween mass and power became more com­plex, and ins­tead more dis­crete demo­gra­phic trends can explain or reflect power dyna­mics. Never­the­less, the ques­tion remains cen­tral. In 1976, when the West was entan­gled in the eco­no­mic cri­sis and the USSR see­med to be gai­ning ground, it was a demo­gra­pher, Emma­nuel Todd, who pre­dic­ted the ‘final fall’ of the Soviet empire, based on indi­ca­tors such as the sui­cide rate and the rise in infant mortality.

In the same way, by obser­ving trends and dyna­mics, demo­gra­phy can be a good way to pre­dict shifts in power. Chi­na has alrea­dy joi­ned Europe in its decli­ning popu­la­tion and geo­po­li­ti­cal influence and Ame­ri­ca could soon follow.

Power without numbers ?

In our inter­view with Nicho­las Ebers­tadt he notes that coun­tries with decli­ning popu­la­tions may try to coun­ter­ba­lance their decline by reas­ser­ting their inter­na­tio­nal role all the more vigo­rous­ly. Today, we see this in Rus­sia and also, in a dif­ferent way, North Korea.

As Pierre Buh­ler writes in La Puis­sance au XXIe siècle, “the rela­tion­ship bet­ween demo­gra­phy and power, while it may seem obvious, does not neces­sa­ri­ly allow us to iden­ti­fy a clear cau­sal rela­tion­ship.” This is all the more true when, like in advan­ced eco­no­mies, the logic of power is both capi­tal- and tech­no­lo­gy-inten­sive. The capa­ci­ty for inno­va­tion, Buh­ler explains, is now cen­tral and can out­weigh the demo­gra­phic fac­tor : as will be the case in the future as mili­ta­ry means will be less labour-inten­sive : a robo­tic and tech­no­lo­gy-inten­sive war can do without men.

The weaponisation of demography

In the 1960s, some experts pro­mo­ted the idea that popu­la­tion growth was in itself a fac­tor in geo­po­li­ti­cal uphea­val. Paul Ehr­lich, for example, publi­shed The Popu­la­tion Bomb in 1968, a best-sel­ling book in which he war­ned of the like­li­hood of dead­ly famines that would pro­voke wars.

Today, this fear can be found in concerns over ‘cli­mate migrants’, even though, as Her­vé Le Bras reminds us in his inter­view, the phe­no­me­na obser­ved up to now are main­ly played out on a local scale. It is true that this could change in the event of more wides­pread uphea­val due to cli­mate change. But we have not yet rea­ched this stage, even if we know the role the price of cer­tain com­mo­di­ties (inclu­ding wheat, whose prices are very sen­si­tive to the glo­bal wea­ther) played in trig­ge­ring the “Arab spring” in 2011.

More signi­fi­cant is the des­ta­bi­li­sing poten­tial of waves of refu­gees see­king to flee wars in Afri­ca and the Middle East to find asy­lum in other Afri­can coun­tries and Europe. The sen­si­ti­vi­ty to the issue of migra­tion in many Euro­pean coun­tries can make these “waves” – howe­ver small – a poli­ti­cal fac­tor that can lead to regio­nal destabilisation.

During the Syrian cri­sis in the 2010s, Tur­key played on these waves as part of the com­plex rela­tions that they main­tain with the Euro­pean Union, which alter­nates bet­ween latent conflict and nego­tia­tion ; some­thing we see today with Bela­rus using the same tac­tics. This wea­po­ni­sa­tion of migra­tion is a geo­po­li­ti­cal novel­ty, which is part of the constant­ly evol­ving reper­toire of asym­me­tric stra­te­gies and hybrid war­fare.

Support accurate information rooted in the scientific method.

Donate