Acceso usuarios
El presente artículo parte de la premisa que el concepto de frontera aplicado al espacio asiático no se corresponde con el de una línea en el mapa, sino que debe aplicarse a extensas regiones de soberanía cuestionada a lo largo de la historia. La expansión europea por todo el mundo llevó aparejada la difusión de su modelo de estado soberano, nacido en la Paz de Westfalia (1648), a través del cual se relaciona entre sí la comunidad internacional. Sin embargo, ese modelo ha mostrado en Asia una menor capacidad de adaptación al aplicarse sobre un continente que poseía un sistema de relaciones entre estados propio, el llamado sistema tributario. Ello, combinado con la falta de legitimidad de algunas fronteras dibujadas por el imperialismo y con el auge de las grandes potencias asiáticas ha convertido a enormes territorios, en ocasiones reconocidos como soberanos (como, por ejemplo, las dos Coreas, Pakistán o Sri Lanka, en ocasiones grandes regiones históricas como Cachemira, Tíbet o Xinjiang) en meras fronteras o áreas de transición entre las grandes potencias colindantes.
Para demostrar la validez de esta afirmación, el presente artículo revisa las teorías y los conceptos sobre la historia, la geografía y la globalización de, entre otros, autores como los de Braudel, en su teorización de los periodos de larga duración en el tiempo de los hechos históricos; Zhu Zhenghui como inspirador de la idea del despliegue de la historia en espiral; Robert D. Kaplan, como apologeta de la importancia del factor geográfico; John Mearsheimer y sus estudios sobre el realismo en las relaciones internacionales o Henry Kissinger y sus análisis sobre el orden mundial y el funcionamiento de los estados nación westfalianos. Además de todo ello, sin dejar de lado a Samuel P. Huntington, el visionario que anunció como la cultura, y no la economía ni la ideología, sería el motor de la historia futura y Francis Fukuyama, en su evolución desde la fallida profecía del fin de la historia hasta sus posicionamientos actuales donde resalta como la identidad se ha convertido en el eje estructural de la política del siglo XXI.
Con este bagaje teórico se describe cual es el concepto geográfico de lo que realmente hablamos al referirnos a Asia y se exponen las causas circunstancias particulares de cada uno de aquellos territorios considerados por el autor como fronteras de Asia. Concluyendo, finalmente, que el futuro de la humanidad se encuentra muy, posiblemente, en juego en la disputa de poder y legitimidades actuales en estas fronteras de Asia con una relevancia especial en lo que ocurra en torno a Taiwán y el Mar de China Meridional.
The 1This article begins with the premise that the concept of the frontier when applied to the Asian context does not correspond to a simple line on a map but rather must be understood as vast regions of contested sovereignty that have evolved throughout history. European expansion across the globe brought with it the spread of its model of the sovereign state, a model that was formally established by the Peace of Westphalia in 1648. This model, which dictates how the international community interacts, has been instrumental in shaping the global order as we know it. However, in Asia, this model has shown less adaptability, as it has been applied to a continent with its own complex system of relations between states, commonly referred to as the tributary system. This unique system, combined with the lack of legitimacy of certain borders drawn during the era of imperialism and the rise of powerful Asian nations, has transformed enormous territories—sometimes recognized as sovereign entities, such as the two Koreas, Pakistan, or Sri Lanka, and sometimes as large historical regions like Kashmir, Tibet, or Xinjiang—into mere borderlands or transition areas between neighboring great powers. To substantiate this assertion, the article delves into a review of various theories and concepts on history, geography, and globalization as presented by several key thinkers. Among these are Braudel, who is renowned for his theorization of long-term historical events; Zhu Zhenghui, who inspired the idea of the unfolding of history as a spiraling process; Robert D. Kaplan, a prominent advocate for the significance of geographical factors in shaping political realities; John Mearsheimer, known for his studies on realism in international relations; and Henry Kissinger, whose analysis of the World Order and the functioning of Westphalian nation-states continues to be influential. Additionally, the article considers the insights of Samuel P. Huntington, the visionary who predicted that culture, rather than economy or ideology, would become the driving force of future historical developments. Moreover, it examines the evolution of Francis Fukuyama’s thought, tracing his journey from the failed prophecy of the end of history to his current positions that emphasize how identity has emerged as the central axis around which twenty-first century politics revolves. With this rich theoretical background in place, the article proceeds to describe the geographical concept of what we are really talking about when we refer to Asia. It distinguishes between a geographical definition, a cultural one, and an essential definition. The latter encompasses the areas, civilizations, and nations that were born and developed outside the Mediterranean world, marking them as distinct from the Western-dominated sphere. It is within this geographical framework, which essentially corresponds to East Asia (characterized by Confucian civilization), South Asia (the Indic world), and Southeast Asia, that the aforementioned frontiers are delineated, giving us a clearer understanding of the regions in question. In the following section of the article, the specific causes and particular circumstances of each of these territories, which the author considers as frontiers of Asia, are meticulously presented. Five distinct border areas are identified and examined in detail: Firstly, we have the borders of China and India, which are divided into two main categories. On the one hand, there are “the conflict regions: Tibet, Xinjiang, Kashmir, and the Indian Far East (including Assam, Manipur, Nagaland, Mizoram, Arunachal Pradesh, and Tripura)”. On the other hand, there are “the Himalayan States: Nepal and Bhutan”. In this context, a vast hot area is formed on both sides of the Himalayan range, where conventional border limits are often superimposed, sovereign legitimacy is frequently disputed, armed secessionist movements are commonplace, and where Bhutan’s stability stands out as the exception rather than the rule. Secondly, the article discusses “India’s (and China’s) borders”, which are composed essentially of the border marks left by the British Raj of India. These marks have since evolved into sovereign states that confront, to varying degrees, the Indian Union. The inherent hostility of Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka towards India has turned these three states into essential tools for the strategic advance of the People’s Republic of China against Delhi. Around the major ports of these three states, China, under the poetic name of the String of Pearls, has established a series of naval bases. These bases encircle India, enabling China to project its power over the Indian Ocean to the Persian Gulf, and ensuring a secure oil route to its territory, thereby highlighting the strategic importance of these borders. Thirdly, the article analyzes “the borders of China and Japan: the Korean Peninsula and Taiwan”. In this case, we encounter three administrative entities that are artificial in nature, a direct consequence of the Cold War’s end and the ideological clash between communism and capitalism. Despite the passage of time, these entities have been frozen in this new era, largely due to the secondary effects of China’s rapid rise. On one side, we have the two sovereign states resulting from the artificial division of the Korean nation, and on the other, the remnants of the Republic of China, which are artificially sustained in Taiwan thanks to the difficulty of crossing the Strait that separates the island from mainland China, coupled with American military and economic support. These three territories, whose mere existence as independent states in law (in the case of the two Koreas) or in fact but not in law (in the case of Taiwan), represent historical anomalies. Japan has played a crucial role in shaping this status quo, first as a counterbalance to communism and then as a counterweight to China’s growing influence. It is important to note, however, that this area represents China’s frontier with the West, where powerful Japan serves as a key component of the American strategy, possibly acting as the foremost American gendarme against East Asia. Fourthly, and in what could be considered an extension of the previous frontier, we have “China’s borders with Southeast Asia: the South China Sea”. The key issue in this region is the dispute over the boundaries defined by the so-called nine-dash line map, on the basis of which China claims sovereignty over the entire South China Sea, stretching from the Straits of Malacca to Taiwan. The article examines China’s frictions with all the littoral countries in this region, with Japan and the United States playing significant roles in these ongoing disputes, further complicating the geopolitical dynamics at play. Finally, in fifth place, the article analyzes “the borders of China and Russia: Mongolia”, where the border between the former Tsarist and Chinese empires, over time, has evolved into a transition area between the new emerging Chinese power and the broader Western world. This analysis sheds light on the historical and contemporary significance of this frontier. In conclusion, the article argues that the future of humanity may very well hinge on the power and legitimacy struggles currently unfolding along these Asian frontiers. Particular emphasis is placed on the events surrounding Taiwan and the South China Sea, which are identified as the true front-lines of what appears to be an emerging new cold war, looming on the horizon and poised to shape global affairs in the years to come.
