Introduction to Geopolitics

PHASE FOUR
PHASE THREE
PHASE TWO
PHASE ONE
Figure 2.1
Modelski’s world leadership cycle.

---

representation in his model is most important. In a cold use of language, global wars
are defined as a “systemic decision”—they are instrumental in deciding who will be the
next world leader (see Box 2.3). For Modelski, a leader is seen as acting benevolently—
carrying the burden of maintaining global security for the benefit of all rather than acting
for narrow national self-interest. The order defined by the “innovation” is portrayed as
neutral; it is seen as being obviously good for all, rather than benefiting some countries
or groups over others. Perhaps, most significant is the pattern of history Modelski iden-
tifies from the application of his model. Great Britain was able to have two consecutive
cycles of world leadership. The geopolitics of the model is clear, if the Brits had two
shots then there is nothing stopping the United States doing the same thing; the twenty-
first century can be an American century too!
The United States and Modelski’s model
In the next chapter we will spend more time talking about how the geopolitics of the
United States changed over the time periods of the cycle. For the moment, we can offer
a sketch of American history to help you relate the abstract model to the “real world.”
The period of global war in this particular cycle ran from about 1914–45, the beginning
of World War I to the end of World War II. The US played a minor role in the 
former conflict while it came in late and decisively in the latter. At the end of World
War II, the US was able to set a global agenda around the twin themes of national self-
determinism and development that established its position as world leader. Institutions
1111
2
3
41
5
6
7
8
91
10
1
2
31111
4
5
6
7
8
9
20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
30
1
2
3
4
51
6
7
8
9
40
1
2
3
4
5111
S E T T I N G   T H E   G L O B A L   G E O P O L I T I C A L   C O N T E X T
39
Box 2.3 World Wars I and II in historical context
Both Modelski and Wallerstein view the two world wars as twin episodes in one
conflict, the one that decided who would succeed Great Britain as world
leader/hegemonic power. Modelski is also guilty of representing these two (or is
it one?) conflicts in cold language. Together, they are identified as a “systemic
decision” of world leadership succession—a very instrumental way to view the
deaths of millions of soldiers and citizens across the globe.
Within the phase of global war, the emerging world leader has a “good war,”
in the sense that it avoids much of the physical destruction of its homeland suffered
by other fighting countries. Hence, its relative economic power increases dramat-
ically. In the case of World War II, as the factories of Germany, Japan, and Great
Britain were being flattened by aerial bombing, those in the United States were
expanding their capacity. The emerging leader also enters the conflict relatively
late—using its relative power to dictate the terms of peace to its likening. For
further reading see Peter Taylor’s use of Wallerstein’s framework to analyze how
Great Britain faced opportunities and constraints in creating its post-World War II
foreign policy in his book 
Britain and the Cold War
(1990).

---

such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), UN, and NATO were established to
enforce and legitimate the new world leader’s agenda. However, dissent toward the US’s
leadership emerged, and much quicker than in previous cycles. The Soviet Union
provided an immediate ideological and military challenge. The Vietnam War exposed
the world leader to allegations that it supported continued European-style control of the
poor ex-colonies in the world, and illustrated the limitations of its military capabilities.
The Korean War and the Vietnam War are evidence that the US suffered from violent
coordinated military challenge much earlier than Modelski’s model would suggest. As
the twentieth century drew to a close, a different form of challenge emerged at about
the same time Modelski would say the US was entering the phase of deconcentration.
The anti-US terrorism of al-Qaeda had sporadic successes in Africa and the Middle East
prior to the devastation of 9/11 and the heralded “War on Terrorism.”
Broadly, the twentieth century history of the United States fits the pattern expected
from Modelski’s model. Though it is interesting to note that challenges to the United
States’ leadership came much earlier than expected, and it is a matter of both inter-
pretation and geopolitical guesswork whether the “War on Terrorism” is a period of
deconcentration preceding a new phase of global war, or the global war itself.
How can we interpret the Cold War within Modelski’s model? On the one hand, the
Cold War shows that the US was challenged strongly much earlier than Modelski’s
model would expect. The ideology of Communism, under the guise of Marxism-
Leninism, offered an alternative to the liberal-capitalist model proposed by the world
leader. The world leader was unable to extend its influence globally, being excluded
from the Soviet bloc and facing competition from socialist movements in Africa, Asia,
and the Americas.
A key event in the era of United States’ world leadership was the demise of the Soviet
Union and the collapse of the Iron Curtain. In a series of events through 1989 and 1991
that took commentators and policy analysts by complete surprise, the countries of Central
and East Europe that had been under the control of the Soviet Union since the end of
World War II were allowed to renounce the Communist system. Spontaneously, in 1989,
the physical barriers of the “Iron Curtain,” most notably the Berlin Wall, were torn down
by the bare hands of jubilant people who were eager to make contact with the West. In
1991, the Soviet Union became Russia and spoke of creating a democratic political
system with a market economy in place of a Communist one-party state. How should
what commentators in the US interpret as the “victory over Communism” be interpreted?
One argument is that the US’s first cycle of world leadership was truncated and suc-
cessful. The Cold War represents a victory in a Modelski style global war that has
ushered in a second consecutive cycle of world leadership for the US, under the guise
of President George H.W. Bush’s “new world order.” However, both the lack of overt
conflict with the Soviet Union and the current challenges being faced by the US under-
mine an interpretation that we are within the US’s second cycle of leadership.
Alternative views of the Cold War may help us interpret it within Modelski’s perspec-
tive. For analysts such as E.P. Thompson (1985) and György Konrád (1984), the Cold
War was a mutually beneficial geopolitical drama that served the Soviet Union and 
the US, rather than a potential global nuclear holocaust. The Cold War provided the
grounds for both major protagonists to control their allies in Western and Eastern Europe
I N T R O D U C T I O N   T O   G E O P O L I T I C S
40

---

respectively. It provided the reason for the military occupation of Europe by both the
Americans and the Soviets. In addition, the Cold War included a consensus that the
poorer parts of the world were to be dominated by the big powers. Though both sides
claimed the mantle of anti-imperialism, the Cold War provided the excuse for political
and military control of the newly independent countries.
The most likely interpretation is that the Cold War signified a limited but significant
challenge to the US’s world leadership. In other words, the period of world leadership
was muted and the period of delegitimation amplified. The argument that the Cold War
was of mutual benefit to the Soviet Union and the US is supported by an interpretation
that the beginning of the period of deconcentration (and not a period of stability) was
marked by the collapse of the Soviet Union. All of a sudden, the certainties that the
world leader had known were gone, and a violent challenge, that was hard to pinpoint
and counter, emerged.
The European Union and Modelski’s model
How do we interpret the European Union (EU) within Modelski’s model? First, the
genesis of the EU was part of US plans to rebuild Western Europe after World War II.
Though there have been political disagreements across the Atlantic since 1945, in general
the US has supported the integration of Western Europe, because it helped counter the
challenge of the Soviet Union and also reinforced economic and political ties with 
the world leader. The countries of Western Europe have, generally, followed the will
of the US. One historic dispute was the British and French attempt to seize control of
the Suez Canal in 1956. However, this episode met with strong US disapproval and
Britain and France quickly complied with the world leader’s wishes by retreating.
The EU is the product of a trend toward intensified integration of European coun-
tries, coupled with an expansion of the number of countries included. Now the EU
contains the countries of Central and Eastern Europe that were once under the control
of the Soviet Union. The intensification and expansion of the EU has resulted in discus-
sions of its assumption of a global geopolitical role. In some cases this role has been
visible, and in others it has been conspicuous by its absence. For example, the EU coun-
tries have been influential in international negotiations over global warming emissions.
Alternatively, in the 1990s European countries stated that they would take the lead in
resolving the war waging in the former Yugoslavia, but after embarrassing failures it
was ultimately the US who intervened militarily and diplomatically.
On the one hand, the EU may be viewed as a form of delegitimation, in Modelski’s
terms. Its growing strength and confidence has allowed some countries, notably France,
to be critical of US policy. Significantly, the EU has established a military force, the
EuroCorp. This may also be viewed as delegitimation: it is a statement that NATO (the
military expression of US influence over Europe) is no longer taken for granted and that
purely European alternatives may one day replace the world leader’s institution. In 1992,
the EU described EuroCorps as “a European multi-national army corps that does not
belong to the integrated military structure of the North Atlantic Alliance (NATO).”
On the other hand, the current EuroCorps website contains the sub-heading “A Force
for the EU and NATO.” In 1993, EU documents clearly identified EuroCorps role within
1111
2
3
41
5
6
7
8
91
10
1
2
31111
4
5
6
7
8
9
20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
30
1
2
3
4
51
6
7
8
9
40
1
2
3
4
5111
S E T T I N G   T H E   G L O B A L   G E O P O L I T I C A L   C O N T E X T
41

---

both the geopolitical structures of the EU 
and
NATO. In addition, when push comes to
shove, the European countries have supported the global military role of the world
leader; most notably regarding the US decision to invade Iraq. The