ژئوپلیتیک بنادر: تقابل کدهای ژئوپلیتیک بندر پایه چین و هند در خطوط ارتباطی دریایی (SLOCs) در سطوح مادی و گفتمانی

ABSTRACT
Ports, as mainly urban strategic spaces, constitute geographical sources of power, which are extremely important among states with their geostrategic position as a gateway between land and sea powers. Since they have the pulse of the coastal country's economy, ports are considered their geo-economic heartland in connection with the global economy and the network of port cities. This article aims to conceptualize the geopolitics of ports with an emphasis on the geopolitical codes of emerging powers and create a suitable framework for studying the geopolitical role of these political-spatial components in geopolitical literature. The innovation of the current research is the conceptualization of the geopolitics of the port according to the three components of "power, regional/global actors, and the geographical space of the port" and placing it in the framework of geopolitical codes. The methodological novelty of the research is an attempt to overcome the dichotomy of realistic/idealistic methods and, in line with it, to create a bridge between critical geopolitics and classical geopolitics, which examines the port space in both material and discursive levels. The results show that placing ports as geopolitical codes in the foreign policy agenda of countries can change the geographical distribution of power between countries on the world map in favor of port power.
Extended Abstract
Introduction
Ports, as mainly urban strategic spaces, constitute geographical sources of power, which are extremely important among states with their geostrategic position as a gateway between land and sea powers. Since they have the pulse of the coastal country's economy, these components are considered their geo-economic heartland in connection with the global economy and the network of port cities. In addition, ports are the scene of the power game in this century, and a new great game centered on the geopolitical role of access to ports and hegemony over them has been formed. In such a way, the geopolitical codes included in India's foreign policy agenda is access to the heartland through ports. China's geopolitical code is the construction and development of a string of pearls of ports in the coastal geopolitical lines of the world, including the Indian Ocean region. This article aims to conceptualize the geopolitics of ports with emphasis on the geopolitical codes of emerging powers and create a suitable framework for studying the geopolitical role of these political-spatial components in geopolitical literature.  
The innovation of the current research is the conceptualization of the geopolitics of the port according to the three components of “power, regional/global actors, and the geographical space of the port” and placing it in the framework of geopolitical codes. On the other hand, the methodological novelty of the research is an attempt to overcome the dichotomy of realistic/idealistic methods and to create a bridge between critical geopolitics and classical geopolitics, which examines the port space in both material and discursive levels. Because the geopolitical codes of the foreign policy of emerging powers such as China and India rely on ports, the empirical example of the current research is focused on the more complex port competitions within the geopolitical codes of these two countries.
 
Methodology
In response to Hardy and Thomas's call (2014), in the geopolitical analysis of power and war relations, we cross the duality of realistic and idealistic methods in classic and critical schools and see geopolitics as a process that is both material and discursive. This combination can serve as a bridge between classical and critical geopolitics, providing a geopolitical understanding of space as subjective and objective categories. We, therefore, show that port governance practices, while physically changing space, generate symbolic messages. Geo-governance is understood here as simultaneously material and representational processes that consider the importance of materiality alongside discourse in geopolitical understandings of the world in both practice and language. In this way, the language games of the rulers shape the geographical imaginations of society and the world, producing a vertical layer that justifies the physical actions on the land.
 
Results and discussion
Port geopolitics is a new thematic trend in geopolitics that emerges from the mutual relations between three components of power, regional/global actors and port spaces. Therefore, placing ports as geopolitical codes in the foreign policy agenda of countries can change the geographical distribution of power among countries on the world map in favor of port power.
Ports can be considered geopolitical assets of a maritime country according to the following components as:
1) Their potential to stimulate industrial development;
2) Geographical sources of entry of countries into the scene of sea and global power competition;
3) Strengthening the maritime geopolitical capabilities of the coastal country;
4) The country's gateway to the global economy;
5) The desire of regional and global powers for long-term investments in them;
 6) Ensuring business security and geo-energy needs.
Today, with the shift of power, the role of ports as highways for international trade has been developed in the chess game of powers. Therefore, the acquisition and control of ports for independent political units on the map of the political geography of the world has become one of the basic components of power, especially economic power in the new global geopolitical system. With a combined vision in the field of power distribution in the world, we will come to the fact that the geopolitical importance of ports can transform the power cycle of the world at all scales in favor of the port hegemon country. On the other hand, geopolitical representations and territorial depictions of ports as threatening sources for changing the world order by competing powers in a discursive space can challenge this hegemony. With the change of geopolitical power structures in the 21^st century, the Central Asian scene is still centered on the global geopolitical chessboard, and China, Russia, the United States, and India are the leading players in the geopolitical competition over this region. These powers are competing in an area that is vital to global balance. It is no coincidence that geopolitical analysts call it the new big game. Among these 4 powers, 3 countries, America, China and India, do not have direct access to this region, and ports are the most desirable way for these powers to access the heartland.
 
Conclusion
The research results show that the "hegemonic power of ports" can play a decisive role in the field of power confrontation, that is, sea and land. Therefore, ports should be considered increasingly in the new topics of "geopolitics" and foreign policy of countries. Therefore, since these geopolitical components connect the two geographic areas of "land" and "sea" and are considered national-strategic assets of the coastal country, today the attention of strategists, theorists, and governments of emerging powers, including China and India, has attracted. In such a way that ports appear in the political-economic doctrines and geopolitical codes of these countries. The geopolitical importance of these geographical components becomes apparent when the geopolitical representations of the United States and its Asian democratic allies mention China's strategy in building and developing a network of ports with the territorial imagination of the "string of pearls", which is dangerous to change the Western-oriented world order. With a counter-representation of its port geopolitical code, China places it within its so-called peaceful doctrine to counteract the negative geopolitical imagery of the United States and present a peaceful image of its port strategies.
 
Funding
There is no funding support.
 
Authors’ Contribution
Authors contributed equally to the conceptualization and writing of the article. All of the authors approved thecontent of the manuscript and agreed on all aspects of the work declaration of competing interest none.
 
Conflict of Interest
Authors declared no conflict of interest.
 
Acknowledgments
 We are grateful to all the scientific consultants of this paper.