Introduction to Geopolitics

partially
rests upon the actions of the US.
The key word here is “partially.” Proponents of structural models tend to give
emphasis to the constraints that structures place on agents; in this case the structural
inability of the world leader to untangle itself from increased challenges to its authority.
Researchers who are more focused upon agency place greater emphasis on, say, the
foreign policy decisions made by successive US presidential administrations.
Another set of criticisms toward Modelski’s model reside within his conception of
what is geopolitics. First, his model follows the classic geopolitical tradition of being
state-centric. The geopolitical agents (leaders, challengers, and coalition members) are
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
50

---

all countries. Second, he focuses upon the rich and powerful countries; poorer countries
of the “global south” are deemed irrelevant in his system of challenge, war, and leader-
ship. The geography of Modelski’s geopolitics is limited in two senses; it sees state
territoriality as the only space of politics and it concentrates on just a part of the globe.
Power is central to any understanding of geopolitics. Hence, we should be especially
critical of Modelski’s measure of power. One obvious question is whether sea-power is
no longer relevant in an age of cruise missiles and satellite communication. In defense
of Modelski, his long-term historical perspective requires a consistent measure of power,
one that is as useful for understanding the sixteenth century as it is for comprehending
the twenty-first century. Sea-power seems to fit the bill. The essence of the model, and
the definition of power, is global reach, the ability to influence the behavior of other
countries across the globe. At times this requires military muscle, and as we have seen
in recent US-led conflicts that still requires a naval presence. Moreover, the US military
has redefined the meaning of “global reach” utilizing weapons and surveillance systems
that facilitate observation of the whole globe at all times, and the ability to remotely
kill people and destroy targets across the globe (see Box 2.6). Unmanned drones carrying
missiles and cameras may be a long way from sea galleons, but each identify the world
leader as the country with the dominant means of exerting its power across the globe
in their respective historical periods.
Also interesting to note is the contradiction in the measure of power and the opera-
tion of the politics of world leadership. While the power index is based upon a material
measure, sea tonnage, the process rests upon ideological power, the ability of the world
leader to define and implement a political agenda that is perceived to be in the interest
of all. Rather than focusing upon the number of aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines,
the world leader’s authority rests upon the resonance of its political and cultural insti-
tutions and practices. The resort to arms is an admission that the political agenda is not
being followed.
In subsequent chapters we will see how feminist and Gramscian notions of power
can be applied to address questions of the representations and gender relations that are
not only promoted by the power politics Modelski analyses but are, in fact, necessary
for world leaders to maintain their authority.
Another pertinent question that is often raised centers upon the “driving force” under-
lying the model’s dynamics. One attempt has been to relate the rise and fall of world
powers to global changes in technology and economics (Modelski and Thompson, 1995).
This raises the question of how to understand the material capacity and need to possess
the sea tonnage that is an integral part of his model. Economic power requires a large
merchant fleet to facilitate trade. Economic power provides the public funds needed to
build a military naval capacity. In addition, Modelski forces us to look at some other
processes. Most intriguing is the phasing of the preference for order. It implies a gener-
ational process of forgetting the horrors of warfare experienced by many during “global
war” and an increasing truculence with an “imposed order”: the geopolitics of mass
psychology rather than the imperatives of capitalism.
Finally, is Modelski a geopolitician or a social scientist? A social scientist should be
gathering and interpreting data with an eye to avoiding the biases of their social posi-
tion and nationality. Geopoliticians, on the other hand, are politicians with an eye toward
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
51

---

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
52
Box 2.6 Technology and the global reach of the 
US military
Research and development efforts within the US are aimed at enhancing the
technological capacity for the military’s global reach (Figure 2.5). The Defense
Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)/Air Force Falcon program is
developing hypersonic flying technology “that will enable prompt global reach
missions and demonstrate affordable and responsive space lift” (DARPA, 2005).
The unmanned reusable hypersonic cruise vehicle
would be capable of taking off from a conventional military runway,
carrying a 12,000-pound payload, and reaching distances of 9,000 nautical
miles in less than two hours. This hypersonic cruise vehicle will provide
the country with a significant capability to conduct responsive missions with
quick turn-around sortie rates while providing aircraft-like operability and
mission-recall capability.
(DARPA, 2005)
In everyday language, this military robot can fly very fast, reach across the 
globe, bomb a target at a moments notice, and do it again soon afterwards, or be
redirected while in flight.
A related form of global reach is Geospatial Intelligence (GEOINT), a form of
military power in which the discipline of geography is heavily implicated.
GEOINT is the “natural marriage” (National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency,
2004, p. 13) of satellite and rocket images with Geographic Information Systems.
By combining remote sensing, precise geopositioning, digital processing,
and dissemination, GEOINT enables combatant commanders to success-
fully employ advanced weapons on time and on target in all-weather 
day-night conditions around the world. Today’s warfighting capabilities
represent quantum improvements in precision and targeting technologies.
(National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, 2004, p. 15)
And the goal? Well, “by continuing to leverage innovative technology and pro-
cesses with an increasingly agile workforce, NGA (National Geospatial-
Intelligence Agency) and NSG (National System for Geospatial-Intelligence)
members are uniquely postured to contribute to information dominance and, 
ultimately, achieve the promise of a more certain world” (National Geospatial-
Intelligence Agency, 2004, p. 17). Contemporary global reach requires “infor-
mation dominance,” the goal of “knowing” the world that the world leader
dominates. The purpose of GEOINT is more “efficient” military operations that
will facilitate a “certain” world: not necessarily “just” or even “peaceful” but
“certain,” a synonym for the “order” the world leader says it can provide to justify
its relative power.

---

advancing a particular foreign policy agenda that they believe will enhance the inter-
ests of their own country relative to others. For geopoliticians, data are collected and
theories are written in order to provide a seemingly objective backdrop that makes their
political agenda seem “obvious” and validated by “science.” Within which camp
Modelski falls is a matter of interpretation. He does have a message for the geopolitical
future of the US. He is also a skilled historical social scientist who has meshed an
impressive data collection with an intriguing theoretical model.
Summary and segue
This chapter has introduced a particular model of world politics in order to set the global
geopolitical context. Though Modelski’s model is far from perfect, it does allow us to
situate the actions of countries within a global picture of political cooperation and
conflict. Perhaps the most important usage is in the interpretation of the role of the US,
and why it appears to be facing increased and intensified opposition. As we shall see in
the next chapter, despite its apparent focus upon the rich and powerful countries, it also
helps us contextualize the geopolitics of al-Qaeda, with its violent opposition to United
States’ world leadership and rhetorical claims to represent the victims of US policy.
But now that we have introduced a way of thinking of a global geopolitical struc-
ture, the next chapter will focus upon the agency of an important set of geopolitical
actors, countries.
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
53
Figure 2.5
Unmanned military drone.

---

Having read this chapter you will be able to:
■
define the key components of Modelski’s model;
■
understand the critiques of the model;
■
use the model to interpret current events, especially US foreign policy
and reactions to it;
■
use the model to interpret representations of US foreign policy by
politicians, academics, and commentators.
Further reading
Bacevich, A. (2002)