The geopolitical role of the United States as world leader was made clear:
Our overall policy at the present time may be described as one designed to
foster a world environment in which the American system can survive and
flourish. It therefore rejects the concept of isolation and affirms the necessity
of our positive participation in the world community.
(VI, A)
In other words, the “American system” was the basis for the United States’
role as world
leader, and it required a global geopolitical code. The enemy was identified as the Soviet
Union. Allies were countries and people advocating “free institutions.”
The means of the geopolitical code were twofold. First, NSC-68 claimed a “policy
to develop a healthy international community” (VI, A); the establishment of global order
in Modelski’s terms. Second, the document outlined a “policy of ‘containing’ the Soviet
system” (VI, A), or negating the ideological and geopolitical challenger. Containment
was a policy
which seeks by all means short of war to (1) block further expansion of Soviet
power, (2) expose the falsities of Soviet pretensions, (3)
induce a retraction of
the Kremlin’s control and influence, and (4) in general, so foster the seeds
of destruction within the Soviet system that the Kremlin is brought at least
to the point of modifying its behavior to conform to generally accepted inter-
national standards.
(VI, A)
As world leader, the US would be the influential investigator, judge, and jury when it
came to breaches of “international
standards,” but this policy manifested itself in realms
of activity from nuclear deterrence, to the Vietnam War, and espionage. There is a
contradiction within NSC-68. On the one hand, it calls for the global role and presence
of the United States, while,
on the other hand, its call for “containment” acknowledges
the challenge of the Soviet Union. In other words, the rhetoric of leading the whole
world was maintained within the practical constraints of a bi-polar world.
But what of representing this geopolitical code of world leadership to domestic and
international audiences? For domestic consumption, NSC-68 was based upon the ideals
and content of the US Constitution. Section II was entitled “Fundamental Purpose of the
United States” in which the “three realities”
of individual freedom, democracy, and deter-
mination to fight to defend the American way of life were established and deemed to be
under the protection of “Divine Providence.” It was these “realities” that formed the
basis of US world leadership; they were to be diffused to the world to maintain order.
Section III, “Fundamental Design of the Kremlin,” (“Design” having an evil,
even sexual,
implication rather than the valiant “Purpose”) argued that the United States was the
Soviet Union’s “principal enemy.” Both the domestic security and global mission of the
US were justified by rhetoric within NSC-68. Hollywood was implicated too, as a spate
of movies based on biblical epics portrayed the Middle East in a manner that was acces-
sible while subtly justifying US foreign policy in the region. We will discuss these
movies in greater depth in the next chapter.
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
G E O P O L I T I C A L C O D E S
69
Within the process of world leadership, geopolitical codes must also be dynamic. To
illustrate this point we skip to another phase of Modelski’s model,
the contemporary
period when the world leader must reassert its authority in the face of a new challenge.
We will investigate the geopolitical code of the world leader through a discussion of
the National Security Strategy (NSS) of 2002, the so-called “Bush Doctrine.” First we
will analyze the geopolitical code of what, at the time of writing, is the clearest
geopolitical challenge to the US: Osama bin Laden’s
fatwa
, or decree.
A geopolitical code to challenge the world leader
In February 1998, the London based Arabic language newspaper
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: 
