Introduction to Geopolitics

Activity
Is it more accurate to think of the United States from the early twentieth century
to today as a hegemonic power or as world leader? 
To answer the question, think about the relative weight given to economics versus
politics and self-interest and political duty in the different models. Perhaps you may
be able to find examples of both. 
Is the global “responsibility” of the US as either world leader or hegemonic power
solely a matter of rhetoric, or can you also point to particular actions?

---

■
Phase of global war
: The ability, or perceived right, to act as world leader is decided
through a period of global war. The declining world leader is challenged by coun-
tries believing they should inherit the mantle. Coalitions are constructed and over
the 25-year period, that may include a number of different wars and conflicts, one
country emerges as having both the material capacity and ideological message to
impose global order.
■
Phase of world power
: Once victory has been achieved the geopolitical project of
the new world leader is enacted. New institutions are established to apply and
enforce the new agenda. On the whole, the new agenda is welcomed and followed.
■
Phase of delegitimation
: At the outset of the establishment of a new period of world
leadership, the imposed “order” is, overall, welcomed. But over time dissent grows.
The benevolence of the world leader can be questioned; its actions seen increas-
ingly as self-serving. Alternative agendas are given greater weight. The challenge
to the world leader has begun, but the world leader is still relatively strong.
■
Phase of deconcentration
: The challenges beginning in the previous phase become
stronger. The world leader expends its material and ideological capacity in reacting
to these challenges, making it weaker and more vulnerable to more attacks, in a
spiral of challenge and reaction that leads to the phase of global war. Challenges
are more frequently, but not exclusively, violent and organized campaigns. The
world leader is called upon to react militarily, exhausting its material base of power
and highlighting contradictions between its actions and its rhetoric. In combination,
its legitimacy is increasingly questioned, and challenge intensifies.
As a concrete example, the war in Iraq has been represented by the United States as a
mission in the name of “peace” and “humanity,” as we will discuss later. As part of that
military action, atrocities came to light that added fuel to the fire of those opposed to
the US presence in Iraq. A prominent event was the abuse in Abu Ghraib prison that
provided a sharp contrast between the representation of the occupation of Iraq as a “civil-
izing mission” of world leadership and actual events that challenge the leader’s authority
(see Box 2.4).
Using the ideal conceptual framework we have discussed, Modelski paints a par-
ticular picture of history—one defined by the cycles of world leadership. The role of
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
37
Table 2.1 Cycles of world leadership
World leader
Century
Global war
Challenger
Coalition partners
Portugal
1500s
1494–1516
Spain
Netherlands
Netherlands
1600s
1580–1609
France
England
Great Britain
1700s
1688–1713
France
Russia
Great Britain
1800s
1792–1815
Germany
US plus allies
United States
1900s
1914–45
Soviet Union/
NATO/Coalition of 
al-Qaeda
willing
Source: George Modelski (1987) 
Long Cycles of World Politics
, Seattle: University of Washington Press.

---

Futur
e
cy
cl
e
Pr
evio
us
cycle
75–100
50–75
25–50
0–25
Deconcentration
of dominance
Delegitimation of
world leader status
Y
ears in world leadership cycle
Power concentration index
Dominant state rises/
undisputed world leader
Global wars/
inter
national chaos