ABSTRACT

Geo-strategic location is, perhaps, the prime constraint on a state's survival. States, unlike human beings, cannot choose their neighbours. Since their location is constant, they must find the best ways and means of getting along with their neighbours, particularly the stronger ones. Hence, actions and interactions of states, as well as friendships and enmities among them, are determined largely by geo-strategic realities, or as the Indian philosopher, Kautilya, argued: neighbouring states are inevitably' natural enemies' , while the powers on the other side of a state's neighbours are its 'natural allies' .1 This line of reasoning was further elaborated by modern geo-politicians, such as Sir Halford Mackinder who also tended to view the geo-strategic factor as a strategic be-all and end-all: 'Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland; who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island; who rules the World-Island commands the World. '2 While this approach is essentially simplistic and reductionist, it can hardly be denied that there are several types of geo-strategic location that exert a decisive impact on the forms and format of neutral policy.