Geopolitics in the World Today

By J. M. Lane, Ph.D.

YouTube: https://youtu.be/YCJ-KOmDiPg

Rumble: https://rumble.com/v1ifwrr-geopolitical-theories-in-the-world-today-how-the-ideas-of-a-few-changed-the.html

Odysee: https://odysee.com/@Jesse_Lane:6/Geopolitics_Today:d

The Study of Geopolitics Geopolitics is the study of the effects of Earth's geography (both human and physical) on politics and international relations. According to John Agnew, Professor of Geography at the UCLA, “‘geopolitics’ has long been used to refer to the study of the geographical representations, rhetoric, and practices that underpin world politics. The word has in fact undergone something of a revival in recent years. The term is now used freely to refer to such phenomena as international boundary disputes, the structure of global finance, and geographical patterns of election results.” ​ The term ‘geopolitics’ came into use at the end of the nineteenth century. Thinking globally was, at the time, formally connected by geopolitical reason to acting globally, but the actual practices of geopolitics began much earlier, when Europeans first encountered the rest of the world. Several general theories emerged during the early history of geopolitics. ​ For Alfred T. Mahan, the key to global power lay in access to, and command of, the seas; a key that carried with it revolutionary shifts in the naval strategy of nearly every maritime power. For Ellsworth Huntington, the important variable was climate. He argued that certain climates were responsible for technological inequalities across the globe, of which made Europeans more intellectual than people located in the tropics. Huntington’s hypotheses resulted in the rationalization of imperialism in Africa and led to the growth of Social Darwinism as a dominant philosophy in Western Europe. ​ More than any other scholar, however, it was Sir Halford Mackinder who proposed what would become the most widely discussed concept of geopolitical studies. In this, he argued that control of resources, especially in Asia, was the key to global political control.

Geopolitical Theories Over the past century and a half, a number of major geopolitical theories have developed in an attempt to both explain world power structures and further empower contemporary global authorities. It is true that many early scholars in the field of geopolitics were attempting to provide context to global political institutions; however, these individuals were also employed, at least in part, by imperial power brokers in the United Kingdom and the United States. Therefore, their theories had a deeper purpose: to provide strategic plans for global control. ​ Of these scholars, theories from Halford Mackinder, Nicholas Spykman, Immanuel Wallerstein, Alfred Mahan, Samuel Huntington, and Friedrich Ratzel became the dominant models used by the UK and US for the purpose of world domination. ​ The Heartland Theory, as proposed by Halford Mackinder, became the dominant geopolitical model in the early 20th century, as the UK turned its attention toward control of resources in central Asia. The Rimland Theory, designed by Nicholas Spykman and built on the earlier heartland theory, was used in the mid-20th century to rationalize US involvement in Southeast Asia. ​ The World System’s theory, proposed by Emanuel Wallerstein, attempted to explain the relationship between developed and developing countries through the control of natural resources. While not formally recognized as a geopolitical theory, it has been used by anti-imperialists to contextualize global spatial inequalities. Alfred Mahan’s book titled “The Influence of Sea Power on History” was used by Theodore Roosevelt to design his Big Stick approach in US foreign Policy. This theory, above all others, has been the dominant model for US control in the Pacific Ocean. ​ The Clash of Civilizations Theory, first proposed by Samuel Huntington, has been used by the US and UK to explain the threat of sectarian violence and terrorism in the middle east. This theory has helped to rationalize US involvement in the War on Terror. And finally, the Organic State Theory, created by Friedrich Ratzel, argues that the state is a living organism and must grow in order to survive. This model was used by Nazi Germany to rationalize the invasion of the Rhine Land and Poland in the late-1930s. ​ The Heartland Theory Sir Halford Mackinder was an English geographer, academic and politician, who is regarded as one of the founding fathers of both geopolitics and geostrategy. He was also a Member of Parliament for Glasgow from 1910 to 1922. After Retiring from politics, he went back to academia as a Professor of Geography at the London School of Economics. ​ In 1904, he published an article titled “The Geographical Pivot of History” in The Geographical Journal, the official journal of the Royal Geographical Society of England. In this article, Mackinder developed a theory to explain the importance of strategic control over resources in Eurasia. ​ He argued that earth’s surface could be organized into three main groups: The World-Island, comprised of the continents of Europe, Asia, and Africa (also called Afro-Eurasia); the offshore islands, including the British Isles and the islands of Japan; and the outlying islands, including the continents of North America, South America, and Oceania. ​ The Heartland is located at the center of the world island, stretching from the Volga to the Yangtze and from the Himalayas to the Arctic. Mackinder's Heartland was the area then ruled by the Russian Empire and later by the Soviet Union. He specifically referred to the Heartland as the Pivot Area and argued that if a country controlled the Pivot Area, it controlled the World Island. The power to control the world island reflected Britain’s growing need for resources in order to run its empire overseas. ​ Mackinder argued that whoever controlled these resources would have strategic control over industrialization and militaries abroad. This is especially true when considering the dominant form of land transportation at the time, the railroad. By controlling overland transportation and resources in Eurasia, Britain could control all other countries’ access to those resources. ​ In his 1919 book titled Democratic ideals and reality: A study in the politics of reconstruction, Mackinder claimed “Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland; who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island; who rules the World-Island commands the world.” Britain would use the Heartland Theory to rationalize foreign intervention in the South and Central Asia over the next 50 years. ​ The Heartland Theory would be adopted by the Trilateral Commission in the 1970s under the leadership of Zbigniew Brzezinski. In his book, the Grand Chessboard, Brzezinski argued that the next big war would take place in Afghanistan and the US would need to control this region in order to control global political affairs. ​ Russia, Britain, and the Great Game In order to understand this theory, we must place it in an historical context. In the mid-19th Century, Russia was expanding into South Asia, a territory that the British needed to control. Thus, began the 200-year struggle for control of Afghanistan and Iran. Both Iran and Afghanistan have an abundance of natural resources such as oil, natural gas, precious metals and opium. However, neither country is located completely within Mackinder’s Heartland. These countries were viewed by the British as strategic staging grounds for the real prize, Central Asia. ​ During the latter years of the 19th century and before the publication of Mackinder’s “Geographical Pivot of History”, Russia and Britain were involved in several border skirmishes in norther Persia, now called Iran, and Afghanistan. Many of these conflicts did not occur between British and Russian forces directly, as both countries were training groups of militias to fight their battles for them. While Afghans and Persians were dying on the battlefield, Russian Oligarchs and British Industrialists were profiting from the resources gained in the conflict. ​ This conflict between Russia and Britain over the control of resources in Persia and Afghanistan was termed by Henry Rawlinson the Great Game. Historians and geographers disagree as to the exact year the Great Game ended, and many scholars argue that it continues today, but conflict cooled by 1873 when Russia and Britain signed an agreement outlining the borders of Afghanistan and Persia. Subsequent treaties between the British, Afghan and Persian leaders laid the groundwork for British control of the region. ​ Russia couldn’t help but notice the encroaching British forces, so in the early 1880s, they annexed portions of Afghanistan. By 1893, Direct conflict between the two powers was imminent and the Kabul Agreement was signed. This agreement defined the modern borders of Afghanistan and delineated British and Russian spheres of influence. It would be Great Game that would lead Mackinder to conclude that whoever controls the heartland, controls the world. ​ Why did Britain want to stop Russia? So, the question remains, why did Britain feel the need to stop Russia from expanding into Persia and Afghanistan. In the latter half of the 19th Century, it became clear to Britain that Russia’s sheer size and military strength represented a growing threat to the British Empire. Britain had spread its resources too thin and it was becoming more expensive and difficult to control its overseas territory. ​ At the time, the British Empire controlled major portions of the earth’s surface. The saying “the sun never sets on the queen” refers the massive reach of the British Empire during the late 19th century. Queen Victoria controlled overseas territory in every continent across the globe. The commonwealth had grown so large the sun quite literally never set on the Queen’s dominion ​ During this period, Afghanistan was the key to stopping Russia from expanding its reach into British controlled India. It also came with the benefit of a wealth of natural resources. Controlling Afghanistan was key to the destruction of the Russian empire and the continuing dominance of the British Empire across the globe. The Heartland Theory now gave the British Crown scholarly rationale for control of these resources. ​ In referring to the goal of controlling the pivot area and warning of the growing power of Russia and Germany, Mackinder stated “the oversetting of the balance of power in favor of the pivot state, resulting in its expansion over the marginal lands of Euro-Asia, would permit of the use of vast continental resources for fleet-building, and the empire of the world would then be in sight. This might happen if Germany were to ally herself with Russia. The threat of such an event should, therefore, throw France into alliance with the over-sea powers, and France, Italy, Egypt, India, and Korea would become so many bridge heads where the outside navies would support armies to compel the pivot allies to deploy land forces and prevent them from concentrating their whole strength on fleets. […] May not this in the end prove to be the strategical function of India in the British Imperial system?” ​ To Mackinder, India was the key to the control of the Pivot Area. At the time of Mackinder’s essay, British controlled India bordered southern Afghanistan and this region was the key to stopping the Russian Empire. ​ What is so important about Afghanistan? The broad majority of the American population today can’t place Afghanistan on a map, but it’s often the places the public knows very little about that are the most important. In fact, the strategic value of an area is often omitted and hidden by the very individuals that stand to gain from the control of these regions. ​ Afghanistan is one of the most important examples of strategic regions that has been covered up by those in power. Most Americans believe the US invaded Afghanistan in response to the attacks on 9/11. However, the Anglo-American establishment has been involved in Afghanistan since the 1860s. While not a dominant player until the second-half of the 20th century, US industrialists were heavily involved in the region. ​ During the Great Game, the British Empire was also fighting a war with China for control of the Hong Kong opium trade. The Second Opium War occurred between 1856 and 1860 and resulted in China ceding Hong Kong to Britain. Britain used their powerful navy to take control of opium traffic out of China and ship it to the rest of the world. This opium would also be used to dope the Chinese population into submission. ​ Several prominent American businessmen were involved in the smuggling business as well. According to James Bradley “A procession of American sea merchants made their fortunes smuggling opium. They were aware of its poisonous effects on the Chinese people, but few of them ever mentioned the drug in the thousands of pages of letters and documents they sent back to America. Robert Bennet Forbes – a Russell and Company contem­porary of Delano’s – defended his involvement with opium by noting that some of America's best families were involved, ‘those 10 whom I have always been accustomed to look up as exponents of all that was honorable in trade – the Perkins, the Peabodys. the Russells and the Lows.’" ​ As the supply of opium began to wane in Hong Kong by the end of the 19th century, the British turned their attention to Afghanistan, which was now under its sphere of influence. These same families involved in Hong Kong became major investors of poppy fields in British Controlled Afghanistan. ​ The connections between Britain, the US, and Afghanistan did not end after its independence. British troops remained in portions of southern Afghanistan until the 1970s, when the Soviet Union moved a series of troops near its northern border. The US and Soviet Russia were in the middle of the Cold War and by 1979, the US would use Afghanistan as a staging ground to finance opposition forces against the Soviets. ​ From 1979 to 1989, the US and United Kingdom provided money and weapons to the Mujahadin in Afghanistan. In fact, a small group of militants were created by the CIA and given the name Al Qaida, which roughly translates from Arabic into “The Base”, or a shortened form of database. Individuals in this organizations were trained by the CIA in covert guerilla operations against the Soviets. ​ In an address to the House of Commons in the UK, British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook told Parliament, “In the mid-1980s, Al Qaida was a database located in computer and dedicated to the communications of the Islamic Conference’s secretariat.” One of the most infamous individuals listed in the database was Osama bin Laden. He was trained and supported by the US, the UK, and the Royal Family of Saudi Arabia throughout the 1980s and 90s. In his speech to Parliament, Robin Cook went on to say “Al Qaida was neither a terrorist group nor Osama bin Laden’s personal property […] The terrorist actions in Turkey in 2003 were carried out by Turks and the motives were local and not international, unified, or joint. These crimes put the Turkish government in a difficult position vis-a-vis the British and the Israelis.” In the end, those attacks were blamed on Al Qaida in Iraq. ​ Throughout the 1980s, the CIA along with UK intelligence funded the covert operations of Al Qaida through the sale of guns and heroin. Peter Dale Scott, Professor Emeritus at UC Berkley, detailed the account of weapon and drug smuggling by US intelligence in Afghanistan in his 2003 book titled Drugs, Oil, and War: The United States in Afghanistan, Colombia, and Indochina. According to Scott, “The CIA contracted for Contra support in Central America with an airline owned by a ringleader of the largest cocaine network in the region. By providing funds for Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, a drug trafficker selected for support by Pakistani intelligence […] the CIA helped propel Hekmatyar into becoming, for a while, the largest heroin trafficker in Afghanistan and perhaps the world.” ​ Ultimately, the training of Mujahedeen fighters and Al Qaida operatives in Afghanistan proved to be a success and the Soviet Union pulled out its troops in 1989. After the US left Afghanistan, several individuals from the Mujahadeen formerly allied with the US formed the group known today as the Taliban. ​ The Taliban petitioned the US for financial support several times after troops left Afghanistan. Each time, the US would give a list of demands to the leaders of the Taliban. By 2000, the Taliban had instituted several reforms and began burning thousands of acres of poppy fields. Shortly after September 11th, 2001, the US invaded Afghanistan claiming retribution for the attacks on the World Trade Center Towers in New York. Interestingly, the plan to invade Afghanistan had been developed well before the September 11th attacks. ​ Prior to the US invasion of Afghanistan, opium production had declined by 99 percent. Since the invasion, Afghanistan has become the largest exporter of opium in the world, all while US troops guard the poppy fields. Of Course, opium is not the only strategic resource of interest to the US. In 2003, geologists discovered nearly 1 trillion dollars’ worth of untapped mineral deposits throughout the Afghanistan. Of that 1 trillion in resource wealth, iron accounts for approximately 420.9 billion dollars of potential profits for US corporations. ​ The fight for control of Afghanistan can trace its roots back to the Heartland theory, a model specifically designed for the control of Central Eurasia. Conclusions drawn by Torbjorn Knutsen in his 2014 article titled “Halford J. Mackinder, Geopolitics, and the Heartland Thesis” sums up this link quite succinctly. “Few cases show Mackinder’s relevance better than the conference held in Bonn in December 2001 which legitimised Western intervention in Afghanistan with a grandiloquent rhetoric of human rights and development that defined absurd goals about a new Afghan state to be run on Western principles of popular sovereignty. A dozen years of costly war shows the continued relevance of Mackinder’s warning against indulging in wishful thinking and defying geographic realities.” ​ The Rimland Theory During years leading up to the Second world war, transportation technology had greatly improved and international trade had become a major topic in foreign policy circles. Academics and politicians had turned their attention away from overland travel and toward oceanic transportation as an important geopolitical factor within the global power structure. ​ One of the leading academics in this paradigm shift was Nicholas Spykman, a Sterling Professor of International Relations at Yale University. While he is considered by some scholars as a political scientist, his focus was largely geographic in nature and he became a leading academic in the field of geopolitics. ​ He was highly critical of Mackinder’s Heartland Theory and regarded the model as short-sighted. He argued that, while strategically important, the heartland served little purpose if resources could not be transported overseas. ​ He published his book titled “America's Strategy in World Politics” in 1942, just one year before he died of cancer. In his book, Spykman criticized Mackinder for over-emphasizing the strategic importance of the Heartland. He assumed that the Heartland would not be a potential hub of Europe largely because the vast region of central Asia was surrounded by major mountain ranges, deserts, and the Arctic Ocean to the north. These obstacles made it difficult to transport resources out of central Asia without control over the rimland. ​ For this reason, Spykman argued that the Rimland, the strip of coastal land that encircles Eurasia, is more important than the central Asian zone (the so-called Heartland) for the control of the Eurasian continent. According to Spykman, “Who controls the Rimland rules Eurasia, who rules Eurasia controls the destinies of the world.” In order to have access to strategic resources and retain its role as one of the world powers, it was imperative that the United States use its military to stop the spread of Axis control over the rimland. ​ As he stated in his book, “In order that goods may reach Russia and China, they must first come to the great circumferential maritime highway around the Eurasian land mass and then pass through the border zone. The extent to which the marginal seas and the coastal belt are in control of the German-Japanese Axis is, therefore, an indication of the seriousness of the situation for the two encircled land powers.” ​ Spykman’s thesis was predicated on the strategic importance of ports, especially deep-water maritime ports. If Axis Powers took control of the rimland, control of the oceans would follow. They would be able to control trade and easily conquer territory with valuable mineral resources. ​ The Rimland model was based on the assumption that the world is, and always will be, a multi-polar world. To Spykman, the world is made up of several global superpowers competing over resources. This results in a constant battle for territory. Whoever controls access to these resources will gain the upper hand in this competition. Of course, Spykman did not envision the bi-polar world that would result at the end of World War 2 nor the uni-polar world created after the fall of the Soviet Union. ​ However, as Spykman argued, the world is vast and is difficult for one power to control for a long period of time. In many ways, the world today has returned to a multipolar political structure, with China, the United States, the United Kingdom and the European Union playing major roles in global affairs. ​ Spykman’s geopolitical model became known as the Rimland Theory and was used as the foundation for Harry Truman’s containment policy. Containment refers to US intervention policy against the Soviet Union in the rimland region during the Cold War. The result was a series of wars in Korea, Burma, Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam. In addition, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization was created with the explicit purpose of stopping Soviet Expansion into Western Europe. Each of these regions were strategically important parts of the Rimland. ​ In an article published in Geopolitics, Emre İşeri states “The Heartland Theory provided the intellectual ground for the US Cold War foreign policy. Nicholas Spykman was among the most influential American political scientists in the 1940s. Spykman’s Rimlands thesis was developed on the basis of Mackinder’s Heartland concept. In contrast to Mackinder’s emphasis on the Eurasian Heartland, Spykman offered the Rimlands of Eurasia – that is, Western Europe, the Pacific Rim and the Middle East. According to him, whoever controlled these regions would contain any emerging Heartland power. “Spykman was not the author of containment policy, that is credited to George Kennan, but Spykman’s book, based on the Heartland thesis, helped prepare the US public for a post war world in which the Soviet Union would be restrained on the flanks.” ​ Vietnam War and Heroin Smuggling The strategic value of the rimland was not just limited to maritime trade access. This region was also abundant in strategic resources. The importance of Indochina during the Cold War resulted in US intervention in Burma, Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam. Contrary to popular belief, the US did not invade Vietnam solely to stop the spread of communism. During World War 2, a group of anti-colonial rebels, known as the Viet Minh, were in the middle of a revolutionary war against the French. At the same time, Viet Minh forces were fighting an invasion of Japanese Imperial forces. ​ The Viet Minh would eventually be replaced by the Indochinese Communist Party under the leadership of Ho Chi Minh. At the time, France’s resources were spread across several continents and an impending invasion back home gave Imperial Japan an opportunity to take control of French Indochina. Having been educated in the United States, Ho Chi Minh was well-versed in US history and government policy. In September of 1945, he declared independence from France in a statement modeled after the Declaration of Independence. ​ Earlier that year, Japan had effectively seized control of Vietnam from the hands of the French. Ho Chi Minh took this opportunity to seize territory in rural Vietnam. His success attracted the attention of the U.S. Office of Strategic Services (OSS), the forerunner to the CIA. In March 1945, an OSS officer met with Ho Chi Minh in Kunming, China. The two men quickly struck a deal. The OSS would equip the Viet Minh with radios and some light arms. In return, the Viet Minh would give the OSS intelligence, harass Japanese forces, and try to rescue American pilots shot down over Viet Minh-controlled territory. ​ A small number of OSS operatives parachuted into northern Vietnam in mid-July 1945 to help train the Viet Minh. This so-called Deer Team found Ho Chi Minh deathly ill, “shaking like a leaf and obviously running a high fever.” They treated him for malaria and dysentery, and he recovered quickly. Looking forward to what would happen after Japan’s defeat, he asked his American guests, “I have a government that is organized and ready to go. Your statesmen make eloquent speeches about helping those with self-determination. We are self-determined. Why not help us? Am I any different from Nehru, Quezon, or even your George Washington? I too want my people to be free.” ​ The OSS trained and funded Ho Chi Minh’s army throughout the war, along with the Kuomintang Nationalist Chinese forces stationed in Burma and Thailand. A large portion of this funding came from the smuggling of weapons and heroin. US intelligence worked alongside cartels in Vietnam, Burma, Laos, Cambodia, and Thailand to distribute heroin from the Golden Triangle to the United States. ​ By 1947, the OSS would be replaced by the CIA, who would continue smuggling operations in Indochina. The CIA would run this operation through a transport subsidiary called Civil Air Transport, later called Air America, and would ship thousands of pounds of heroin through associated cartels to the United States. ​ According to an article written by David Truong in 1987, “The CIA-backed KMT troops settled in Burma after World War II and controlled the opium traffic for buyers in northern Thailand and Bangkok. From 1948 on, American intelligence activities in the Golden Triangle were intertwined with the opium trade. Infiltration routes for CIA commando teams into southern China were also used as drug smuggling routes for traffickers in Burma and Thailand. Local Shan tribesmen provided the guides to both the Agency's teams and opium caravans near the Burma-Chinese border. And the Agency had maintained five secret training camps and two key listening posts in the Shan states protected by its drug smuggling KMT troops and local tribesmen.” ​ This operation would continue under a different title as the US began its operations to invade Vietnam. In early 1964, South Vietnam began conducting a series of covert U.S.-backed commando attacks and intelligence-gathering missions along the North Vietnamese coast. Codenamed Operations Plan 34A, the activities were conceived and overseen by the Department of Defense, with the support of the CIA, and carried out by the South Vietnamese Navy. ​ Initial successes, however, were limited; numerous South Vietnamese raiders were captured, and units suffered heavy casualties. In July 1964, Lieutenant General William C. Westmoreland, commander of the U.S. Military Assistance Command, shifted the operation's tactics from commando attacks on land to shore bombardments using mortars, rockets, and recoilless rifles fired from South Vietnamese patrol boats. North Vietnam was well aware of US covert operations and sent a warning shot toward a US destroyer on August 2nd, damaging the ship in the process. Two days later, another US destroyer was sent on an intelligence mission to the Gulf of Tonkin. ​ Using falsified evidence, President Johnson went to Congress claiming that the second destroyer had been torpedoed by the North Vietnamese and sunk to the bottom of the Gulf. However, the Gulf of Tonkin incident never occurred. Declassified documents released by the National Security Agency in 2005 revealed no such attach ever occurred and evidence had been skewed to push Congress into action. ​ The Gulf of Tonkin incident was used as the excuse to gain control over trade in Southeast Asia. One item in particular was valuable to US intelligence … heroin. Throughout the Vietnam war, heroin and weapon smuggling was used to fund covert operations such as the Phoenix Program, which was designed to identify and destroy the Viet Cong through infiltration, torture, capture, counter-terrorism, interrogation, and assassination. ​ Drugs were smuggled to the United States by way of Air America and landed in inner-city communities across the country. One of the more extreme examples of drug smuggling came to light in 1972. By the in early 1970s, the heroin epidemic in the US had become a major health problem and the CIA had to find alternative ways to transport the drug. Nixon’s war on drugs made it difficult to ship heroin out of Vietnam, so smugglers began working with US intelligence to package heroin inside the bodies of dead G.I.’s being sent home for burial. ​ A news story was released by the New York Times on December 17th of 1972 describing the court case that ensued. “An eight-year smuggling conspiracy brought heroin into the United States inside the bodies of soldiers killed in Vietnam, according to testimony from military and customs men in Federal Court here. The details of the alleged conspiracy were disclosed at a hearing on Mr. Sutherland’s request for a reduction of the 50-thousand-dollar bail set in his case. He is charged with impersonation and using fake documents. When arrested, the authorities said Mr. Sutherland was wearing the uniform of an Army sergeant and asserted that he had been in the Army 12 years.” ​ Of course, this article does not provide the complete story. A subsequent investigation by the DEA and Air Force Office of Special Investigations found compelling evidence that members of the CIA and Military were directly involved in the transportation of heroin in dead soldiers. Bob Kirkconnell, a retired Air Force chief master sergeant, investigated these events and discovered several cases of illegal smuggling by military personnel. ​ One example included the transportation of between 80 to 90 transfer cases containing human remains. When Japanese customs agents searched the vehicle, two of the bodies were missing along with the Army major and master sergeant in charge. The master sergeant just happened to be Thomas E. Sutherland. Evidence from the Japanese government showing direct military involvement was sent to Sutherland’s court case but was subsequently removed from evidence. Sutherland was convicted of carrying false documentation and impersonating a military officer and sentenced to 5 years in prison. Drug charges were never issued and the case was effectively covered up by US Intelligence. ​ In an interview on WBAI, Professor Peter Dale Scott discussed the role that the CIA played in the transportation of drugs from Indochina to the United States. ​ World Systems Theory Not all geopolitical theories were used by western countries to rationalize foreign dominance. One in particular, the World Systems Theory, attempted to explain the reasons behind this dominance. Developed by Immanuel Wallerstein in 1974 with the publication of his paper titled “The Rise and Future Demise of the World Capitalist System: Concepts for Comparative Analysis”, this thesis critically evaluated the contemporary world economic system with a particular focus on the impact of US and European foreign policy in Africa. ​ At the time, Wallerstein was a Professor of Sociology at McGill University and focused specifically on critical theory as an explanation of global political and economic relationships. He spent his early career as an expert on post-colonial African affairs, where he became interested in the writings of Raul Prebisch, from the Structuralist School, and Andre Gunder Frank from the Dependency Theory branch of structuralism. ​ Wallerstein designed the World Systems Theory based on the writings of these earlier scholars, arguing that core countries use financial and political tool to exploit resources and cheap labor from periphery countries. Both the structuralist school and dependency theory argued that developed countries used military, finance, and foreign policy to keep the former colonial world dependent. While Wallerstein’s theory did not deviate from this premise, he provided clarification on the nature of this relationship. To Wallerstein, there were no independent national economies; the world was connected by a world capitalist system where core countries exploit periphery countries for financial control. ​ According to his model, core countries extract cheap natural resources from periphery countries, ship those resources to semi-periphery countries for refining and manufacturing, and send the finished goods to core countries for consumption. Because these finished goods are a more profitable part of the value-added supply chain, core countries maximize profit by selling those goods back to periphery and semi-periphery countries. ​ The cyclical relationship between core, semi-periphery, and periphery countries creates a system where periphery and semi-periphery countries are perpetually dependent on the finished products from core countries in order to survive. Cheap labor and raw materials provide increased profit margins for transnational corporations based in core countries. Throughout this process, semi-periphery countries remain in a state of limbo between resource exploitation and consumption. ​ The World Systems Theory is largely based on the benefit of history and geography as a factor in core-periphery dominance. Due to a series of geographical and historical events, northwestern Europe was better situated in the sixteenth century to diversify its agricultural production. Early improvements in agriculture led to specialization and industrialization, giving western Europe an early start on development. Mild climates and access to resources like coal created an opportunity for Europe to increase productivity and eventually industrialize. ​ Access to oceanic travel and favorable currents also aided in the industrialization of Europe and the colonization of Latin America and Africa. Today, Core countries primarily exist in mid-latitude coastal areas such as western Europe, North America, East Asia, and Australia. There are disagreements amongst scholars as to where China fits in the world system model, but it cannot be denied that China is a powerful country with imperial tendencies similar to that of Western Europe and the United States. ​ While current geography plays a major role in the world economic system, Wallerstein primarily focused on historical economic growth in core countries as a key reason for economic domination. Core countries are able to use the financial power gained from early industrialization and large state mechanisms to ensure their dominance in perpetuity. ​ According to Wallerstein, “The key fact is that given slightly different starting-points, the interests of various local groups converged in northwest Europe, leading to the development of strong state mechanisms, and diverged sharply in the peripheral areas, leading to very weak ones. Once we get a difference in the strength of the state-machineries, we get the operation of 'unequal exchange' which is enforced by strong states on weak ones, by core states on peripheral areas.” The result, a world system where periphery countries become increasingly financially dependent on core countries. ​ Core-Periphery Dominance Core countries use varies tools to gain dominance of the periphery. Of these tools, foreign aid, currency pegs, military bases, and financial sanctions dominate. ​ Foreign aid refers to any type of assistance that one country voluntarily transfers to another, which can take the form of a gift, grant, or loan. Most people tend to think of foreign aid as capital, but it can also be food, supplies, and services such as humanitarian aid and military assistance. ​ Broader definitions of aid include any assistance transferred across borders by religious organizations, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and foundations. U.S. foreign aid usually refers to military and economic assistance provided by the federal government provides to other countries. ​ To be perfectly clear, most aid provided by western countries comes in the form of loans with caveats attached. The International Monetary Fund is one of the more insidious organizations used by Western countries to ensure economic dominance. The IMF was created at the at the end of World War 2 to regulate currency exchange rates to facilitate orderly international trade and to be a lender of last resort when a member country experiences balance of payments difficulties and is unable to borrow money from other sources. ​ Over the decades following the war, the IMF evolved into a very different organization that its original intent. As the developing world became more dependent on loans from private institutions, the IMF stepped in to consolidate loans for countries in financial trouble. Called loan forgiveness programs, the IMF actually consolidates and restructures the loans so that the country makes smaller annual payments. As per their agreements, the IMF then provides more loans that they characterize as financial aid. Before the IMF grants a loan, it imposes conditions on that country, requiring it to make structural changes in its economy. These conditions are called ‘Structural Adjustment Programs’ (or SAPs) and are designed to increase money flow into the country by promoting exports so that the country can pay off its debts. ​ Organizations like the IMF and World Bank are used as weapons by core countries to ensure periphery and semi-periphery countries remain dependent on easy money. An article written by Whitney Webb at Mint Press News, outlines the use of these organizations by the US as “unconventional weapons.” According to Webb, “In a leaked military manual on unconventional warfare recently highlighted by WikiLeaks, the U.S. Army states that major global financial institutions — such as the World Bank, International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) — are used as unconventional, financial weapons in times of conflict up to and including large-scale general war, as well as in leveraging the policies and cooperation of state governments. The document, officially titled ‘Field Manual 3 dash 05 point 130, Army Special Operations Forces Unconventional Warfare,’ and originally written in September 2008, was recently highlighted by WikiLeaks on Twitter in light of recent events in Venezuela as well as the years-long, U.S.-led economic siege of that country through sanctions and other means of economic warfare. Though the document has generated new interest in recent days, it had originally been released by WikiLeaks in December 2008 and has been described as the military’s regime change handbook.” ​ The article went on to say that “U.S. government applies ‘unilateral and indirect financial power through persuasive influence to international and domestic financial institutions regarding availability and terms of loans, grants, or other financial assistance to foreign state and nonstate actors.” This document provides evidence that aid from the IMF and World Bank has an ulterior motive … domination. ​ Aid from organizations like the IMF results in an increased dependence on raw material exports for government income. Many of these countries also have large welfare structures and government expenditures. SAPs often require governments to institute austerity programs, or spending cutbacks, as conditions for aid. Keep in mind, the aid provided by the IMF is not actually aid, but loans provided at lower payments over a longer period of time. The result is perpetual dependence on loans and foreign aid. ​ Countries in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia are flooded with foreign-aid every year from countries like the United States, United Kingdom, and Germany. These countries are then required to institute market reforms beneficial to the donors of foreign aid, resulting in an increase income inequality on a global scale. According to Transparency International, the largest recipients of foreign aid are in Sub-Saharan Africa in countries with extreme levels of corruption. The money is not distributed evenly among the population or used to promote growth and to help the poor but is instead used on military equipment or resource extraction. ​ Today, the United States is the largest aid donor in the world. As of January 2020, the US provided 34.7 billion dollars in aid to countries around the globe. The largest recipients of US aid were Afghanistan, Ethiopia, Jordan, South Sudan, and Kenya. Again, it is often a misconception that aid is donated. Most aid, especially from the US, comes in the form of a loan or donation with conditions, such as the purchase of military weapons or extraction of resources by US-based corporations. Countries in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia become increasingly dependent on aid and loans from developed countries that they have little hope of climbing out of the abyss. ​ Another tool used by core countries is currency. Over the past several decades, an increasing number of periphery countries have either pegged their currency to the US dollar or adopted the dollar as their official currency. The same can be said for the Euro, as several countries in sub-Saharan Africa have pegged their currency to the Euro. When a country pegs their currency another currency such as the Dollar or Euro, it agrees to maintain its currency's value at a fixed exchange rate to the pegged currency. Today, at least 66 countries either peg their currency to the dollar or use the dollar as their legal tender. ​ By pegging the currency to the dollar or Euro, a country is giving up its sovereign control over its currency to another country. The country no longer has the ability to devalue their currency to promote exports or revalue their currency to attract foreign-direct investment, making them completely dependent on foreign central banks. ​ Military bases are another important tool used by core countries to ensure dominance. These bases allow quick engagements in foreign countries with relative ease. The War on Terror has only led to the increase in the number of confirmed and unconfirmed US military bases around the world, most of which come as a condition of foreign aid. According to Stephanie Savell, lead researcher of the Costs of War Project at Brown University, the Global War on Terrorism initiated by President George W. Bush is truly global, with Americans actively engaged in countering terrorism in 80 nations on six continents. ​ The global war on terror is made possible by the massive number of US military bases around the world. According to David Vine, associate professor of sociology at American University, the United States maintains nearly 800 military bases in more than 70 countries and territories abroad—from giant “Little Americas” to small radar facilities. Britain, France and Russia, by contrast, have about 30 foreign bases combined. Vine’s map provides some context as to the sheer number of US bases around the world. His analysis organized bases into three groups, confirmed US bases, smaller cooperative security locations (also called Lily Pads) and suspected but unconfirmed sites (or unconfirmed lily pads). These bases give the US strategic control over policy in these countries, forever placing these countries under the thumb of the US military industrial complex. ​ Last on this list, but definitely not least, are financial sanctions. Sanctions are commercial and financial penalties applied by one or more countries against a targeted self-governing state, group, or individual. They’re not necessarily imposed because of economic circumstances—they may also be imposed for a variety of political, military, and social issues. Countries like the US and UK often institute sanctions on a country for human rights violations, or at least that’s what they claim. Sanctions are more often used against countries who institute anti-imperialist domestic policies or foreign policy not beneficial to the US or UK. ​ For example, the US has long been an opponent of the Venezuelan government due to the nationalization of its oil industry. Prior to the Election of Hugo Chavez as President, Venezuela had been a major trading partner and ally with the US. Once Chavez was elected, he nationalized the oil industry and removed private oil companies from the country. Chavez immediately became an enemy of the US after he opened trade with Cuba and Iraq. A coup attempt in 2002 by Venezuelan military personnel with ties to US intelligence failed and Chavez returned to office. During his time as president, the welfare state expanded and helped in some ways to alleviate poverty. ​ Chavez died in 2013 and was replaced by Nicholas Maduro. Public spending and subsequent inflation increased dramatically under Maduro. It would be the election of Donald Trump that would result in the final lynchpin for Venezuela. In 2016 and again in 2017, broad economic sanctions were imposed on Venezuela. Maduro was no longer able to fund the welfare system because the sanctions had cut off Venezuela’s oil exports. Stagflation ensued and oil production collapsed. Poverty increased dramatically but the US government blamed it on Maduro. While Maduro did not have a good track record, it was the financial sanctions that resulted in mass poverty and starvation in Venezuela. Other Latin American countries have also been on the receiving end of US economic hegemony. Central American countries such as Honduras have been under the control of US corporations for a century. In fact, Honduras is where the term Banana Republic originated. It refers to the dependence on bananas as their main export. Beginning in the early 20th century, the United Fruit Company was gaining control of the Banana industry in Honduras. Workers were mistreated and paid extremely low wages. ​ Anti-imperial militias were formed to topple United Fruit Company’s control over the banana market. In 1916, at the petition of United Fruit, US troops were sent to Honduras to ensure its continued dominance in the country. The US government installed a friendly government and United Fruit remained the soul exporter of bananas from Honduras. Today, United Fruit Company is called Chiquita Banana and, together with Dole Fruit Company, controls the majority of banana production in Honduras. ​ The US went a more subtle route in countries like El Salvador. In 2001, the US arranged an agreement for El Salvador to adopt the US dollar as its official currency. This effectively gave the Federal Reserve control over El Salvador’s domestic economy. Of course, these are only a few ways that Core countries assert their authority over the periphery.

“The Influence of Sea Power Upon History” During the same time period that Halford Mackinder was developing his geopolitical theory specifically focusing on the strategic value of the Eurasian landmass, another individual was building his own theory on the strategic importance of water. In 1890, Alfred Thayer Mahan was a lecturer in naval history and the president of the U.S Naval War College when he published The Influence of Sea Power upon History, a dry but extensive exposé on the history and importance of naval power as a factor in the rise of the British Empire between 1660 and 1783. ​ Mahan’s book was hardly a page-turner but it had one very important argument … with land becoming scarce, the sea was the next frontier. His thesis was largely dependent on the value of international and maritime trade as a major factor in determining the wealth of nations. He argued that it was only natural that major European powers competed for control over maritime trade routes. ​ In his first paragraph, he presents this claim quite clearly. “The history of sea power is largely a narrative of contests between nations, of mutual rivalries, of violence frequently culminating in war. The profound influence of sea commerce upon the wealth and strength of countries was clearly seen long before the true principles which governed its growth and prosperity were detected. To secure one's own people a disproportionate share of such benefits, every effort was made to exclude others, either by the peaceful legislative methods of monopoly or prohibitory regulations, or, when these failed, by direct violence.” ​ As expressed in this paragraph, Mahan was a proponent of vigorous foreign policy. In other words, he argued that countries such as the United States would be unable to absorb the massive amounts of industrial and commercial goods being produced domestically. In order to avoid economic collapse, he proposed that the United States should seek new markets abroad. ​ What concerned Mahan most was ensuring that the U.S. Government could guarantee access to these new international markets. Securing such access would require three things: a merchant navy, which could carry American products to new markets across the “great highway” of the high seas; an American battleship navy to deter or destroy rival fleets; a network of naval bases capable of providing fuel and supplies for the enlarged navy, and maintaining open lines of communications between the United States and its new markets. ​ Immediately after the publication of his book, Mahan gained the support of U.S. Naval Officer and Civil Service Commissioner Theodore Roosevelt. Roosevelt had recently returned from the Dakota Territory when he was appointed to the Civil Service Commission. While on vacation, Roosevelt read Mahan’s work and immediately wrote him a letter complementing him on his analysis of naval power. ​ In his letter, Roosevelt tells Mahan … “During the last two days I have spent half my time, busy as I am, in reading your book; and that I found it interesting is shown by the fact that having taken it up I have gone straight through and finished it. It is a very good book—admirable; and I am greatly in error if it does not become a naval classic.” Of course, to Roosevelt, it was more than just a naval classic, it was a playbook for a dynamic country that had just encountered the limits to its growth in the west. Mahan’s book would become Roosevelt’s strategy for building the American Empire. After his appointment as the Assistant Secretary of the Navy by William McKinley, he invited Mahan to the Naval War college quite often. Mahan gave lectures and helped write Roosevelt’s speeches. This close relationship resulted in the annexation of Hawaii during his tenure. Not concerned with economic growth as a primary driver of public policy, Roosevelt focused on building a Naval Empire. He expressed concern over the growth of Japan in the Pacific and turned his attention to the annexation of island territory. ​ During his time as Assistant Secretary of the Navy, Roosevelt oversaw the expansion of US territory across the Pacific Ocean and the Caribbean. He had long supported the annexation of islands as strategic naval bases but Spain was standing in his is way. Roosevelt needed an excuse to take control of Spanish territory but McKinley was not interested in a war with a European Power. In early 1898, Assistant Secretary Roosevelt would get the excuse he needed. The USS Maine was stationed in Havana Harbor after Spain warned the US to stay out of its territorial waters. On February 15th, the forward hull of the Maine exploded in a devastating blast and was sunk. 266 of the 355 sailors on board were killed. Close friends and allies with Roosevelt, William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer quickly began publishing articles calling for war with Spain. ​ The US declared war on Spain on April 25th but the war would only last for 3 and a half months. Several island territories such as Cuba, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines were ceded to the United States as a result of the war. Interestingly, subsequent investigations by the Navy did not provide clear evidence as to what caused the explosion on the Maine. Initially it was thought that a mine in Havana Harbor caused the explosion but some investigators argue it was more likely the combustion of coal near munitions that caused the explosion. According to Ambassador Daniel Benjamin and Professor Steven Simon, evidence suggested that the explosion occurred on the inside of the ship rather than the outside. To this day, Spain has not claimed responsibility for the explosion and no evidence has been provided to show otherwise. ​ After becoming President in 1901, Roosevelt continued using Mahan as an advisor and implementing his philosophies in foreign policy. While giving a speech at the Minnesota State Fair in Falcon Heights, Minnesota, Roosevelt told a crowd of people, “speak softly and carry a big stick,” referring specifically to his foreign policy. In a letter to a close friend, Roosevelt claimed this was his favorite African proverb and could prove useful against the Japanese in the Pacific. His public statement later became known as Big Stick Diplomacy and was used by Roosevelt to build the Panama Canal, expand influence in Cuba, and build a world-class navy. While speaking softly was an important aspect of his philosophy, he placed more emphasis on the big-stick approach to diplomacy. It would be Mahan’s influence and friendship that would help to define Roosevelt’s philosophies on imperial expansion. ​ Of course, Roosevelt’s approach to imperial expansion was nothing novel. The US had been expanding its presence in the Pacific since the late 1850s. A series of climate changes and an agricultural revolution in the great plains had resulted in growing demand for industrial fertilizers. It would be the growing demand for bird guano that would be the first push for an American Empire. ​ Mahan’s influence in foreign policy did not stop with the United States. He held regular meetings with Queen Victoria and Kaiser Wilhelm the 2nd to discuss naval strategy. His impact on Kaiser Wilhelm was so profound that Mahan’s book became required reading for German naval officers. At the beginning of the 20th century, his book was translated into Japanese and became required reading for Japanese naval officers during World War 2. ​ Mahan’s research still has a major impact on research and policy today. As of 2017, around 75 per cent of global trade by volume occurs at sea. This has resulted in maritime dependency has a predictor of per capita wealth. According to a study published in Marine Policy by J. M. Lane and Michael Pretes, “Today, as much as 75% of international trade takes place over water due to the fuel efficiency of seaborne freight and worldwide dependency on water as a means of transportation. Issues in economic geography such as being landlocked and maritime trade are directly related to global development patterns. A country’s ability to participate in international trade and transport goods overseas is integral in the modern global economy” Maritime Imperialism In many ways, Mahan’s thesis on sea power inspired the growth of maritime transportation and naval power over the past century. Viewed as the unofficial imperial handbook of the United States, Mahan’s thesis would be adopted by the People’s Republic of China in the latter half of the 20th century. ​ According to the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency, there are approximately 3,700 active deep-water ports around the world. These ports dot the landscape, contributing 11.08 billion tons of cargo in 2019 alone. The proportion of ports per country is indicative of Mahan’s research. Today, the United States leads port infrastructure development with a total of 552 sea ports, and the United Kingdom is in a distance second with 391. However, increased efficiency in Asian ports and a growing number of ports in China has resulted in competition between east Asian economies and the United States for supremacy in the Pacific. ​ Tensions have increased in the past decade between the U.S. and China over control of trade in the Pacific, leading to growing concern among policy analysts. The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development has warned that these tensions could result in further complications in maritime trade and have the potential to result in open conflict. ​ Shipping routes in Southeast Asia are of particular concern among experts in maritime trade. The Southeast Asia region is strategically located at the crossing of the Indian Ocean and the South China Sea. The region is home to important oceans, seas, and straits that formed one of the busiest international sea lines of communications. The South China Sea and the Strait of Malacca play a vital role in international trade and are considered chokepoints in maritime shipping lanes. Today, Asian container trade accounts for almost 60 percent of the share of world container throughput, with East Asia as the dominant sub-region; while Singapore and Malaysia are the best-connected ports in Southeast Asia via Strait of Malacca. For this reason, the U.S. and European Union have been paying close attention to recent moves by China in the South China Sea. ​ Currently, the U.S. has a strategic advantage over China in the Western Pacific. However, US allies have expressed concern over the construction of naval bases by China on the Spratly Islands. ​ Disagreements over the Spratly Islands, located in the South China Sea between Vietnam, China, Philippines, Brunei, and Malaysia, began in the late 1960s after the discovery of oil. Conflict seemed imminent when, in 2009, Vietnam, Malaysia, and Brunei submitted claims to the United Nations concerning several of the islands. China immediately warned the UN to ignore these submissions because they considered these islands Chinese sovereign territory. In 2016, the Philippines submitted a request to the UN for arbitration over economic exclusive rights provided to them by the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. They claimed that the Convention gave them exclusive rights to the oil surrounding several of the Spratly Islands, but China refused to attend the arbitration. ​ The court ruled in favor of the Philippines but China has ignored the ruling. Unknown to most of the world at the time, China had been constructing Naval bases and airfields on several of the smaller atolls. They had transported sand from beneath the ocean and expanded the size of several of these islands to make room for military installations. By the end of 2016, three new naval airfields had been installed on Fiery Cross Reef, Subi Reef, and Mischief Reef islands. ​ Relations between the Philippines and China over these naval bases had become so contentious that, in 2016, when Rodrigo Duterte was campaigning for the Presidency, he said “I will ride a jet ski [to the Spratly Islands] while bringing the Philippine flag. I would say to China, 'do not claim anything here and I will not insist also that it is ours'. But then I will just keep a blind eye.” ​ One year after his election, Duterte ordered troops to occupy several uninhabited islands in the Spratly chain he claimed were Philippine sovereign territory. He stated to the international press that he was planning to send military to several of the larger islands that the Philippines claims as territory. ​ In April of 2019, China sent nearly 300 naval vessels to the island of Pag-Asa, an atoll called Thitu Island by the Chinese and claimed by both countries. The Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs issued a public statement stating that they would take “appropriate action,” declaring such actions as “illegal” and “clear violations of Philippine sovereignty, sovereign rights and jurisdiction as defined under international law.” Shortly after these comments, Duterte met with US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to discuss possible solutions to the issue. The Trump administration agreed to conduct Freedom of Navigation Operations more regularly in the South China Seas. However, this increasingly confrontational stance has led to concerns in Southeast Asia that the risk of conflict between China and the United States is increasing, particularly as ASEAN attempts to establish a Code of Conduct with China on the South China Sea. ​ To this day, the U.S. continues to apply the lessons learned from Alfred T. Mahan taught to Theodore Roosevelt of a century ago. The Clash of Civilizations Between 1890 and 1990, geopolitical theorists largely focused on conflict between countries, but the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the Collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 led to a reorganization of geopolitical theories. Shortly after the Soviet Union dissolved, political scientist Francis Fukuyama published The End of History and the Last Man. Fukuyama viewed the Soviet Union collapse as a sign of future progress in political systems. Like Karl Marx, he argued that history is a process where societies evolve from one political system to another more advanced type of system. Unlike Marx, he argued that the final step in this evolutionary process was liberal democracy. To Fukuyama, the fall of the Soviet Union marked the end of war between states and resulted in the supremacy of western liberal democracies. ​ His analysis of international geopolitics was praised by the popular press but several outspoken critics argued that Fukuyama’s thesis failed to consider the power of ethnic loyalties and religious fundamentalism as a counter-force to the spread of liberal democracy. One of his leading critics was Samuel P. Huntington, Professor of Political Science at Harvard and deputy director of the Institute of War and Peace Studies. In response to Fukuyama’s book, Huntington published an article in Foreign Affairs magazine titled “Clash of Civilizations?” ​ In his article, Huntington agreed with Fukuyama that war would no longer be fought between nation-states, but he argued that a new type of struggle would develop. The fall of the Soviet Union left a power vacuum in Asia, resulting in the rise of extremist groups based on ethnic and religious authority. Huntington argued that this would ultimately lead to a clash of civilizations between the west and east. ​ To Huntington, Western hegemony was not guaranteed, as its power was beginning to wane. However, this decline is a slow process and is not an immediate threat to the world powers. What has increased in authority is the power of religion in global political affairs. According to Huntington, people “need new sources of identity, new forms of stable community, and new sets of moral precepts to provide them with a sense of meaning and purpose.” Religion and national identity provide an avenue for commonalities between large groups of people. ​ It would be these philosophical lines, and not political lines, that would ultimately lead to a clash of civilizations. In his closing remarks, Huntington argued that “Conflict between civilizations will supplant ideological and other forms of conflict as the dominant global form of conflict. The elites in some torn non-Western countries will try to make their countries part of the West, but in most cases face major obstacles to accomplishing this; a central focus of conflict for the immediate future will be between the West and several Islamic-Confucian states.” ​ To avoid global catastrophe, the West required the renewal of Western identity through the establishment of a new world order of shared international governance. Huntington’s predictions were poignant and prolific, as many of his predictions have come true in recent years. ​ Since 1993, the West in general, and the United States in particular, have declined in influence compared to regional superpowers like China and Russia. Since the opening up of China on the world stage, its power has greatly increased in Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa. Trade liberalization and the creation of free-market special economic zones has resulted in one of the fastest growing economies in the world. According to the World Bank, China’s GDP doubles every 8 years on average, resulting in the largest middle-class in the world. ​ One of its biggest international projects with far-reaching implications for the West is the Belt and Road Initiative. This initiative, also called the New Silk Road, represents a grand strategy by China to finance infrastructure throughout Asia, Europe, Africa, and beyond. If successful, China’s economic initiatives could significantly expand export and investment markets for China and increase its “soft power” globally. It was launched in 2013 to boost economic integration and connectivity with its neighbors. ​ China hopes to gain a better return on its foreign exchange reserves, create new overseas business opportunities for Chinese firms, create new markets for industries currently experiencing overcapacity, and stimulate economic development in poorer regions of China. Some of the largest recipients of loans and aid for Belt and Road construction projects are east African countries like Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, and Tanzania. These four countries have traditionally been under European and US spheres of influence. ​ Huntington claimed that China’s increasing influence in Asia could spill-over into other countries traditionally tied to the west. He argued that this represents one of the most significant problems and the most powerful long-term threat to the West. Recent trends indicate that Huntington’s warnings were fairly accurate. ​ Huntington also warned against the rise in religious extremism and ethnic nationalism. Since the early 2000s, the Middle East and North Africa have seen a dramatic increase in religious violence. According to a Pew Research poll, the highest levels of religious hostilities occur in Yemen, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Israel, and Palestine. Other countries in the region, such as Libya and Egypt, have a number of religious-based conflicts but have declined in recent years. ​ The Middle East-North Africa region had the largest share of countries experiencing religion-related terrorism in 2014, although the Asia-Pacific region had the largest increase in the share of countries that did so. Terrorist activities became more lethal in Israel in particular, where attacks resulted in over 50 casualties in 2014. Members of the Abu Ali Mustafa Brigades claimed responsibility for one of these attacks, which killed at least five people, including four rabbis, in November of that year. ​ In his article, Huntington argued that the “centuries-old military interaction between the West and Islam is unlikely to decline. It could become more virulent.” As recent events in the Middle East and North Africa show, another one of Huntington’s predictions has come true. ​ Of course, religious violence is not just a regional phenomenon, the number of religious conflicts has been increasing across the globe. In an article published in 2019 by the World Economic Forum, authors Robert Muggah and Ali Velshi claimed that “the past decade has witnessed a sharp increase in violent sectarian or religious tensions. These range from Islamic extremists waging global jihad and power struggles between Sunni and Shia Muslims in the Middle East to the persecution of Rohingya in Myanmar and outbreaks of violence between Christians and Muslims across Africa.” A 2018 Minority Rights Group report found that mass killings and other atrocities are increasing in countries both affected and not affected by war alike. While bloody encounters were recorded in over 50 countries, most reported lethal incidents involving minorities were concentrated in Syria, Iraq, Nigeria, India, Myanmar, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Hostilities against Muslims and Jews also increased across Europe, as did threats against Hindus in more than 18 countries. At the same time, non-religious conflicts such as boundary and ideological disputes between states are on the decline. ​ The growing division between people along religious lines was discussed by Huntington in his essay. He claimed that “As people define their identity in ethnic and religious terms, they are likely to see an ‘us’ versus ‘them’ relation existing between themselves and people of different ethnicity or religion.” While these predictions have been proven largely correct, some analysts have argued that they weren’t merely predictions, they were self-fulfilling prophecies. ​ Huntington’s article was published Foreign Affairs magazine, the official periodical of the Council on Foreign Relations, of which Huntington was a member. The CFR was founded in 1921 as a foreign policy think tank. Their initial function was to provide research and policy papers to government officials concerning important topics in international relations. The group formed after a group of wealthy financiers, high level diplomats, and academics met in a private meeting to discuss the future of US relations in Europe. Designed to work closely with Britain’s Royal Institute of International Affairs, or Chatham House, the CFR would play a pivotal role in shaping US foreign policy over the next century. Ruling Class Journalists The influence of the CFR extends beyond government and into private business and media. In an article published in 1993 by the Washington Post, Richard Harwood discussed the direct links between the CFR and the US power structure. Titled “Ruling Class Journalists”, Harwood’s article claimed that the members of the CFR “are the nearest thing we have to a ruling establishment in the United States.” ​ According to Harwood, “The president [Bill Clinton at the time] + his secretary of state, the deputy secretary of state, all five of the undersecretaries, several of the assistant secretaries and the department's legal adviser. The president's national security adviser and his deputy are members. The director of Central Intelligence (like all previous directors) and the chairman of the Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board are members. The secretary of defense, three undersecretaries and at least four assistant secretaries are members. The secretaries of the departments of housing and urban development, interior, health and human services and the chief White House public relations man, David Gergen, are members, along with the speaker of the House and the majority leader of the Senate.” ​ Major players in media are also members of the CFR. Their links to the power structure and news media provide the means for controlling the narrative. Today, mainstream media is owned by only six corporations. According to an analysis from the Swiss Policy Research Organization, the CFR, along with its two most important international partner organizations: the Bilderberg Group and the Trilateral Commission control most of the information that people receive. ​ In 1988, Noam Chomsky, a Professor Emeritus of linguistics at MIT, published an essay outlining the problem with the media monopoly. He argued that the media, being dominated by a small group of elites, is a tool for instituting control over the population. To Chomsky, “the elite domination of the media and marginalization of dissidents that results from the operation of these filters occurs so naturally that media news people, frequently operating with complete integrity and goodwill, are able to convince themselves that they choose and interpret the news "objectively" and on the basis of professional news values” without ever realizing they are being directed by a powerful group at the top. ​ It is Samuel Huntington’s ties with the CFR that have led some researcher to conclude that the Clash of Civilizations was not simply a prediction, but rather policy experts and powerful interests in the CFR used this information for their own benefit. The CFR’s control over information and US foreign policy has enabled them to manage the debate around events happening across the globe. ​ Arab Spring 2010 An example of news media and powerful global interests managing the narrative occurred recently in the Arab World. A group of uprisings in the middle east and north Africa in 2010, collectively called the Arab Spring, sent the region into mass turmoil. Morocco, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Jordan, Yemen and Syria all had violent events occurring throughout the year. Samuel Huntington warned of this very thing happening in the region and warned the United States to take action to prevent conflict. ​ News agencies across the U.S. were reporting the Arab Spring as a mass democratic event. Major media personalities were hailing the uprisings as the next phase in democratization for the subjugated population. Media outlets like Wired Magazine were claiming that “social media was both a spark and an accelerant for the movement.” This argument was mirrored by statements from Dan Rather when he said, “From the streets of Cairo and the Arab Spring, to Occupy Wall Street, from the busy political calendar to the aftermath of the tsunami in Japan, social media was not only sharing the news but driving it.” This movement was portrayed by public figures as the answer to authoritarianism in the Middle East. ​ U.S. diplomat Richard Grenell famously stated that “It is hard to know exactly when the Arab Spring, a phrase used to describe the beginning of the Arab peoples' demand for democracy and human-rights reform, started.” Statements like this were common among public figures. Retired 4-star general Jack Keane had similar opinions when he said “The Arab Spring, nobody's in the streets demonstrating for radical Islam; they're in the streets with a window of democracy. They want our political reform, our social justice, and our economic opportunity.” ​ What these public figures failed to share with the general public, and perhaps they were not aware, is the fact that the United States funded several of these movements through non-profit organizations like the International Republican Institute, the National Democratic Institute and Freedom House. Non-governmental organizations like USAID and the National Endowment for Democracy, both front groups for the CIA, were heavily involved in the Arab Spring. ​ According to information compiled by French author and researcher Ahmed Bensaada, the Arab Spring was neither grass roots nor spontaneous. For 5 plus years, the US State Department and the CIA (through USAID and NED) designed a plan to replace leaders in several middle eastern countries without replacing the autocratic power structure already in place. Then the US would use subversion tactics to replace those leaders with pro-western dictators. ​ Wikileaks cables and financial data revealed that NED and USAID were heavily involved in training the leaders of these uprisings, most of which came from the upper-middle class. Many of these leaders met directly with State Department officials prior to the Arab Spring. ​ The US funded Arab Spring revolts resulted in a decade of violence and the rise of a new line of dictators in places like Egypt. In this case, Hosni Mubarak was replaced by Mohamed Morsi, the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood. Morsi was forcefully removed in 2013 by the military and Abdel al-Sisi seized power. Egypt is currently ruled under a military dictatorship. Yemen has been in a state of civil war since 2011, while the US has continuously supplied weapons to the Saudi-backed government in that country. ​ A particularly egregious example occurred in 2018 when the Saudi coalition dropped US-made bombs on a market in small town in Northern Yemen. At the time, a school bus full of children was passing by the market and was hit directly by the airstrike. No evidence has been provided by the Saudi coalition explaining why they targeted a market. Since then, the US has increased the number of weapons sold to the coalition. ​ The CFR’s control on the News Media has filtered much of this information from reaching the American people, who remain largely ignorant of the US’s role in the Middle East. Syria is another example of a complete lack of knowledge on foreign affairs by the US population. ​ Contrary to popular opinion, the U.S. is not funding moderate rebels in Syria to bring western style democracy. As discussed earlier, al Qaida was founded, trained, and funded by the CIA in the 1980s. It was simply a database with names individuals who were on the US military’s payroll. The name earned wide recognition after September 11th, 2001, but there were no groups of people who called themselves al Qaida at the time. ​ Today, al Qaida is used as a blanket term to describe Islamic terrorist groups in the Middle East. However, any groups or cells that do actually exist, have very little association between them. One group that has received major media attention is ISIL, or the Islamic State. People associated with ISIL in Syria are part of the al Nusra front. The leaders within the US-funded Syrian rebels are all part of, or associated with, al Nusra. In 2015, the Defense Intelligence Agency declassified a report admitting that al Nusra and ISIL are the major driving force behind the insurgency in Syria, which was funded by the U.S. military. The document also admits that the US military wanted to create a Salafist religious state in the region to counteract Syrian and Iranian power in the Middle East. ​ Its situations like these that have led some researchers to conclude that the unbelievably accurate predictions outlined in Samuel Huntington’s paper in Foreign Affairs were not predictions at all, but in fact, self-fulfilling prophecies. Data and released documents indicate that many of the violent uprisings and terror events in the Middle East have been funded by US proxies, and in some cases, provided weapons directly from US-based military contractors. Similar to earlier geopolitical theories, powerful actors in Media and Government used the information discussed in Clash of Civilizations to benefit directly from a changing political landscape, while also obfuscating the truth from the broad public. ​ Organic State Theory One of the most infamous geopolitical theories developed out of Germany at the end of the 19th Century. Between 1897 and 1901, Geographer Friedrich Ratzel published a series of essays on the nature of the state and its relationship to man. Of these essays, “Lebensraum”, “Politesha Geographie”, and “Volkerkunde” would form the broad political theory known today as the Organic State Theory. ​ At the time of publication, Ratzel was working as a lecturer at Leipzig University, where he taught several prominent students that would later create the environmental determinist philosophy within the field of geography. He is considered today as the progenitor of Social Darwinism and national socialist philosophy developed two decades after his death. ​ According to Ratzels theory, the state is a living organism that must eat, drink, and grow in order to survive. In his first analysis on the nature of man and space, titled Völkerkunde, Ratzel organized people into groups called Völkers, which primarily consisted of cultural units similar to nationalities. Her argued that most Völkers were mixed-race and largely based on common political and cultural values. He argued that individuals that make up a Völker worked together like cells in a complex organism. In order for the Völker to survive, it needs space to grow, otherwise with will die. ​ He later introduced an idea called lebensraum in an essay titled “Lebensraum: A Biogeographical Study”, where he argued that all creatures require and compete for living space to survive. Because space is finite, there will be constant conflict between species over control of living space (or lebensraum). Organisms not only compete for living space, but they also fight for control of resources. In this essay, he argued that groups of organisms need to migrate to new territory to grow, but also need to colonize those areas. Here he states “a single plant or animal may travel along such paths, a people, a race, a species can only migrate by colonizing.” In other words, groups of organisms, or in the case of people, Völkers need to colonize and conquer territory in order to survive and thrive. ​ Ratzel would combine his various theories on the nature of society in his book titled “Politesha Geographie”. Here he applied Darwin’s theory of evolution to the development of the state. He argued that culture and the modern state were natural evolutionary adaptations to the natural environment. Because Völkers act as a complex organism through an evolutionary process and organisms need lebensraum to survive, it only made sense to Ratzel that the state itself was a complex organism that needed to expand. ​ Ultimately, Ratzel believed that the natural evolution of society from small tribal communities to the contemporary centralized state was necessary for the survival of the species. Central autocratic state control was a result of the subservience of the population as a whole. ​ He made this perfectly clear in his book titled The History of Mankind when he said “Arbitrary rule has its basis, not in the strength of the state or chief, but in the moral weakness of the individual, who submits almost without resistance to the domineering power.” The submissive nature of the population at-large gave autocratic rule the rationale It was comments like this that provide context for Ratzel’s philosophical foundations. ​ Much of his arguments were based on the writings of earlier philosophers such as Machiavelli, Friedrich Hegel, and John Stuart Mill. To Machiavelli, the survival of the species was dependent on the stabilization of state power. In The Prince, Machiavelli states “it is much safer to be feared than loved because love is preserved by the link of obligation which, owing to the baseness of men, is broken at every opportunity for their advantage; but fear preserves you by a dread of punishment which never fails.” He argued that a good ruler must control the population by creating a constant state of fear for retribution. ​ In Machiavelli’s opinion, the development of central control was a natural process in the evolution from primitive to advanced society. In order to retain control, and therefore keep the peace, a ruler should keep people divided amongst themselves and institute punitive measures for dissident voices. This philosophy was an integral part of the Organic State Theory. Under this paradigm, the role of the state was simple, to keep the organism healthy, the state must eliminate any threat to the health of the organism. ​ G. W. Friedrich Hegel was another philosopher that significantly impacted Ratzels theory. In 1817, Hegel published an extensive book on the principles of logical progression titled “Encyclopedia of Philosophical Sciences” in which he outlined his philosophy known today as the Hegelian Dialectic. According to Hegel, logic follows a series of steps by which an argument is given, an opposing argument is given in response, and both arguments are synthesized into logical conclusion of truth. He also applied the dialectic to issues regarding authority. The thesis, an event on a large scale, is followed by the antithesis, or a reaction. The combination of the thesis and antithesis results in a synthesis, or a solution to the initial problem. Of course, the solution is not always positive. ​ For example, the French Revolution started in 1789 as a response to the excesses of King Louis the 16th. This initial action was the thesis. The reaction of a disillusioned middle-class resulted in the creation of the Terror Government of Maximilien Robespierre. The Reign of Terror represents the antithesis. The synthesis is represented by the establishment of the French Empire under Napoleon Bonaparte. ​ When applied to the organic state theory, the Hegelian Dialectic is especially useful at coercing the public into accepting authoritarianism for the health of the organism. For example, in 1930, following the stock market crash, the National Socialist Party of Germany won significant political control, but still lacked majority support. Hitler joined forces with leaders from the Bourgeois Conservative Party to keep the Communists from taking power. However, the Communist party still had significant support. In order seize control of the German Government, Hitler ordered Nazi party members to infiltrate the police force and military. On February 27, pedestrians near the Reichstag building heard the sound of breaking glass. Flames erupted from the building, causing approximately 1 million dollars in damage. Hitler immediately spread the news that the fire was started by communists attempting to destroy the seat of government. The following day, Paul von Hindenburg, the president at the time, abolished freedom of speech, assembly, privacy and the press; legalized phone tapping and interception of correspondence; and suspended the autonomy of federated states. ​ The Reichstag fire ultimately resulted in the rise to power of the Nazi party and the suspension of civil liberties in Germany. This is a prime example of the Hegelian dialectic: the Reichstag Fire represents the thesis, the first step in a series of actions; the reactionary president removing civil liberties represents the antithesis, or the reaction; and the ultimate rise of Hitler as the leader of Germany is the synthesis. ​ Ratzel’s organic state theory not only borrowed ideas from the teachings of Hegel, it synthesized some of the philosophical undertones of John Stuart Mill’s Utilitarianism. According to Mill, each action should be judged on the result from the whole, as opposed to the morality of a single action. For an action to be ethical, it should produce pleasure for the majority. The ethical philosophy of utilitarianism differed from Immanuel Kant’s philosophy of deontology, which argued that each action should be judged alone based on ideas of universal good and evil. Mill opposed this philosophy and argued that there was no such thing as universal good and evil. ​ When applied to the state, policy should not be judges on an individual basis but should be judged based on the outcome. If policy negatively impacts a small minority, but the large majority benefits, then the action was ethical. This philosophy is based primarily on the philosophy of consequentialism, or the ends justify the means. ​ When applied to the Organic State Theory, utilitarianism can prove useful to those in power. Because the state is a living organism, any individual who opposes the state should be treated like a virus to the body-politic. By removing or extinguishing the virus, the state can remain a healthy organism. Actions to remove the individual are then viewed as ethical because the state survives and prospers. It would be the culmination of Ratzel’s organic state theory, the Hegelian Dielectic, and Mill’s Utilitarianism that would ultimately give rise to the philosophical beliefs of Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin. ​ Problems in Syria Of course, the Organic State Theory did not die with the end of World War 2. Throughout the final months of the war and for several months after, the United States Office of Strategic Services (or OSS) developed a ratline out of Germany, through the Vatican, and to the United States. Termed Project Paper Clip and Operation Gladio, hundreds of Nazis were smuggled out of Germany during and after the war and transported to the United States and Argentina to continue their research. They took their philosophies with them. Several prominent war criminals such as Emil Augsburg and Reinhard Gehlen joined the CIA after immigrating to the United States. Well versed in the philosophy behind the organic state theory, the ideas of these individuals permeated throughout the US government. Today, while not stated publicly, the military and intelligence apparatus apply the organic state theory to US foreign policy.

One prominent example is the recent bombings of Syria in response to chemical attacks from President Bashar al-Assad. In 2013, both France and the UK reported that a chemical weapon attack on the city of Ghouta had been perpetrated by the Assad government. Evidence was largely based on unconfirmed witness testimony and soil samples provided to the UN by the witnesses. At the time, Assad refused to allow UN investigators on scene. The Syrian government denied the attacks and blamed it on al-Nusra controlled rebel groups. The rebels blamed it on Assad. Under Russian and US suggestion, Assad agreed to join the Chemical Weapons Convention and allow all its stockpiles to be destroyed. ​ Another alleged chemical attack occurred in 2017 near the town of Khan Shaykhun. The US Government responded with 59 tomahawk cruise missiles before any investigation had occurred. Both the Russian and Syrian government denied a chemical attacked occurred and claimed the attack was staged. A report by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (or OPCW) concluded that sarin guess, or a complex nerve agent like sarin, was dropped on the town. They claimed the attack could only have been carried out by the Syrian government due to the reported airplanes and bombs that were used. These conclusions were made based on eye-witness testimony and soil samples taken by witnesses. ​ A study published in 2020 in the Global Journal of Forensic Science & Medicine modeled the attack and concluded that the attack was not performed from aerial bombers as reported by the OPCW, but more likely accomplished using an improvised rocket-propelled artillery round. According to the paper, the “crater that the Organization for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) found to be created by an air-dropped chemical weapon was instead created by an improvised short-range artillery rocket armed with a small explosive warhead.” It went on to say that “the OPCW incorrectly identified this crater as the source of a chemical release by an air-dropped bomb - the crater is instead from the impact and explosion of a short-range improvised artillery rocket.” Their findings also indicated “that the crater contained no observable evidence of a sarin container.” ​ The most recently reported attacked occurred on April 7, 2018 in Douma, Syria. According to reports from western news corporations, two chemical bombs were dropped on the city of Douma by the Syrian Air Force. The US military responded by with airstrikes against key Syrian targets.

News reports on Douma attack were televised across the world and on social media. A group known as the Syrian Civil Defense, or White Helmets, arrived on the scene after the alleged attack and recorded the now famous video where they pulled children from debris to clean the chlorine gas off of their skin. The White Helmets received international recognition from this video, but later reports called into question the origins and intentions of this group. ​ After reports of the chemical attack on Douma circulated the media, the OPCW performed a full on-the-ground investigation. Initial reports were inconclusive on the nature of the attack but the final report, released March 1, 2019, concluded that there were reasonable grounds that chlorine was used as a chemical weapon in the attack. The report also suggested that chlorine was released by cylinders that had been dropped from the air, as indicated by their condition and surroundings. ​ After the report was released to the public, internal documents were released from Wikileaks indicating internal division between OPCW investigators. In one document, lead investigator, Ian Henderson, had concluded that the two cylinders were not dropped on location but carried on the ground and manually placed on site. Another document indicated symptoms from individuals on the ground weren’t correlated with exposure to chlorine gas. The third document was an email exchange requesting the removal of the eight on-site inspectors from discussion on the investigation. Their analysis would eventually be removed from the final report. ​ Henderson released his findings to the media but few mainstream sources reported on it. With his information open to the public, other academics were able to evaluate the leaked information and compare differences between the original report and the final report submitted to the United Nations. After reviewing the leaked reports, MIT professor emeritus Theodore Postol said, “When you look at the original report […] there is no doubt that the second report, the report sent to the security council, was not an accident. It was intentional. If you look at the diagrams and figures in this altered report, that actually in some cases contradict the findings. It appears to me that this was designed to intimidate non-specialists.” Postol also accused the US, French, and UK governments undermining the professional integrity of the OPCW for the purpose of advancing certain strategic geopolitical outcomes. The information provided by the leaked documents received little attention from the mainstream media and warnings by Professor Postol were largely ignored. ​ After the release of documents to WikiLeaks, Ian Henderson was relieved of his duties at the OPCW and escorted off the premises. On January 20th, 2020, Henderson testified on his findings in front of the UN Security Council. ​ The use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government was now being called into question. Evidence for chemical attacks on Ghouta, Khan Shaykhun, Douma had all met strong opposition from academics and researchers, but continued to be used as rationale for US involvement in the region. If the attacks weren’t performed in the manner they were being portrayed, then why was the United States supporting regime change in Syria? ​ Back in 2006, WikiLeaks revealed documents indicating US plans to overthrow the Syrian government by instigating a civil war. The US partnered with Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar and Egypt to promote sectarian violence between Sunnis and Shiites. The document also included plans for Israel to expand its settlements into the Golan Heights in Syria. Black budget money was used by the CIA through groups like the National Endowment for Democracy to arm and train protesters in Syria during the so-called Arab Spring. ​ The plan to overthrow Syria had nothing to do with Chemical Attacks, as the first alleged attack did not occur until 2012. Prior to the first bombing of Syria by the United States, plans were underway to build a natural gas pipeline from Qatar through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Syria, then into Turkey. Assad refused to sign the agreement and instead agreed to allow a Russian planned pipeline to be built from Iran, through Iraq, and Syria, then to Lebanon where gas would be shipped to Europe via the Mediterranean. Assad’s refusal did not sit well with the US and weapons were quickly sent to moderate rebels with ties to ISIS and al-Nusra. Chemical attacks and US funded terrorists were just the excuse the US needed to overthrow the Assad Regime. ​ US conflict with Syria is a prime example of the Organic State Theory in action. US Government strategists view the state as a living organism that needs resources in order to grow. In this case, the natural gas is part and parcel with the lebensraum required for the state to remain healthy. In order to exploit the natural gas without directly taking over territory, the US needed a subservient government in Syria. Because Assad refused to work with the US, actions were taken to get the US public to support military action. Enter the Hegelian dialectic. Chemical attacks were used as the excuse to bomb Syria, but little direct evidence of Syrian government involvement ever surfaced. This represents the thesis, or the problem. The American public was devastated by the false reporting from the White Helmets, but most were unaware of the game being played. This is the antithesis or reaction. The synthesis is represented by the direct military action administered by the US military between 2017 and 2019. ​ Closing Geopolitics is a field of study that has been used by political power brokers to ensure their continued dominance on the world stage. In particular, geopolitical theories from Halford Mackinder, Nicholas Spykman, Immanuel Wallerstein, Alfred Mahan, Samuel Huntington, and Friedrich Ratzel have had a profound effect on foreign policy over the past century. Commentators and academics often blame the subjugation of the developing world by the wealthy industrial class on a thirst for profit. This, however, is shortsighted and fails to consider the many examples of wasteful spending by the elite on time-consuming and expensive political interventions. ​ The political and corporate elite have more money than they could spend in several lifetimes, so profit is the least of their worries. The true nature of global conflict is based on the need for power and control over the masses. Strategies perpetrated by the elite are based on a handful of geopolitical theories by an exclusive group of academics; theories that were integrated into the very fabric of western governments and still impact the world today.

​References

• Agnew, J. A. (2003). Geopolitics: Re-visioning world politics (Second ed.). London, UK: Routledge.

• Amadeo, K. (2020, May 6). The dollar peg, hot it works and why it’s done. The Balance. https://www.thebalance.com/what-is-a-peg-to-the-dollar-3305925#:~:text=A%20dollar%20peg%20is%20when,falls%20along%20with%20the%20dollar.

• Attacks on Ghouta: Analysis of Alleged Use of Chemical Weapons in Syria. (2013, September 10). Human Rights Watch. https://www.hrw.org/report/2013/09/10/attacks-ghouta/analysis-alleged-use-chemical-weapons-syria.

• Benjamin, D. & Simon, S. (2019, July 5). How fake news could lead to real war. Politico. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/07/05/fake-news-real-war-227272/.

• Bensaada, A. (2015). Arabesque Américaine: Investigation into the role of the United States in the Arab revolts.

• Berube, C. G. (n.d.). How American operatives saved the man who started the Vietnam War. History Net. https://www.historynet.com/how-american-operatives-saved-the-man-who-started-the-vietnam-war.htm.

• Bishton, D. (2018, March 6). Spratly Islands military bases revealed. Spatial Source. https://www.spatialsource.com.au/gis-data/satellite-images-reveal-completed-military-bases-spratly-islands.

• Boissoneault, L. (2017, February 21). The true story of the Reichstag fire and the Nazi rise to power. Smithsonian Magazine. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/true-story-reichstag-fire-and-nazis-rise-power-180962240/.

• Borger, J. (2018, August 19). US supplied bomb that killed 40 children on Yemen school bus. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/aug/19/us-supplied-bomb-that-killed-40-children-school-bus-yemen.

• Bradley, J. (2016). The China mirage: The hidden history of American disaster in Asia. New York City, NY: Little, Brown and Company.

• Bramhall, S. J. (2015, October 25). The Arab Spring: Made in the USA. Dissident Voice. https://dissidentvoice.org/2015/10/the-arab-spring-made-in-the-usa/.

• Breaking the Set. (2013). Persecuting Petraeus Protestors, Does CFR Control Global Policy? [YouTube Video]. https://youtu.be/CoriOIt9UuI

• Brzezinski, Z. (1997). The grand chessboard: American primacy and its geostrategic imperatives. New York City, NY: Basic Books.

• Calamur, K. (2018, April 13). How will this attack on Syria be any different? The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/04/us-syria-strike/557552/.

• Campbell, A. (2019, February 5). The truth about US sanctions on Venezuela, and why the media gets it wrong. Mint Press News. https://www.mintpressnews.com/the-truth-about-us-sanctions-on-venezuela-and-whys-the-media-gets-it-wrong/254625/.

• Chen, G., Gu, C., Postol, T. A., Sergeev, A., Liu, S., Yao, P., & Scully, M. O. (2020). Computational forensics for the alleged Syrian sarin chemical attack on April 4, 2017: What actually happened? Global Journal of Forensic Science & Medicine. 1-7. http://www.asergeev.com/papers/lsdyna/crater-2020-11-09.pdf.

• Cook, R. (2004). Al Qaida: The Data Base [Speech Transcript]. https://global-politics.eu/al-qaeda-data-base/.

• Coonan, C. (2016). 10 quotes: Philippines president Rodrigo Duterte in his own words. The Irish Times. https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/asia-pacific/10-quotes-philippines-president-rodrigo-duterte-in-his-own-words-1.2812189.

• Corbett Report. (2016). What You Are Not Being Told About the Afghanistan War [YouTube Video]. https://youtu.be/jUvgnt-cOqI.

• Drug feared sent in bodies of G.I.’s. (1972, December 17). The New York Times, 122(41,966), 21. https://www.nytimes.com/1972/12/17/archives/drug-feared-sent-in-bodies-of-gis-court-told-that-smugglers-used.html.

• Empire Files. (2019). “United States” to Imperial America: Our Hidden Empire [YouTube Video]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Df4R-xdKvpM.

• Golinger, E. (2004, November 22). The CIA was involved in the coup attempt against Venezuela’s Chavez. Venezuela Analysis. https://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/800.

• Graham-Harrison, E. (2018, December 30). Beyond Syria: the Arab Spring’s aftermath. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/dec/30/arab-spring-aftermath-syria-tunisia-egypt-yemen-libya.

• Grenell, R. (2012, August 23). Obama's got Syria all wrong — and that's not all. Esquire. https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a15487/obama-romney-syria-richard-grenell-11992376/.

• Gustin, S. (2011, February 11). Social media sparked, accelerated Egypt’s revolutionary fire. Wired Magazine. https://www.wired.com/2011/02/egypts-revolutionary-fire/.

• Harwood, R. (1993, October 30). Ruling class journalists. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1993/10/30/ruling-class-journalists/761e7bf8-025d-474e-81cb-92dcf271571e/.

• Hegel, G. W. F. (2010). Encyclopedia of the philosophical sciences in basic outline (Part 1: Science of Logic) [Translated by K. Brinkman and D. O. Dahlstrom]. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. (Originally published in 1817).

• Hegel’s dialectics. (2020). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hegel-dialectics/#HegeDescHisDialMeth.

• Hendrikson, H. (n.d.). Summary of “The clash of civilizations and the remaking of world order”. Beyond Intractability. https://www.beyondintractability.org/bksum/huntington-clash.

• Herman, E. & Chomsky, N. (1998). A propaganda Model. In Manufacturing Consent. https://chomsky.info/consent01/.

• Hersman, R. (2018, April 11). U.S. response to the reported chemical attack in Douma, Syria. Center for Strategic & International Studies. https://www.csis.org/analysis/us-response-reported-chemical-attack-douma-syria.

• Huntington, E. (1922). Civilization and climate. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

• Huntington, S. P. (1993). The clash of civilizations? Foreign Affairs, 72(3), 3-27. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/system/files/c0007.pdf.

• Huntington, S. P. (1996). The clash of civilizations and the remaking of world order. London, UK: Simon & Schuster.

• Idris, H. & Ramli, M. F. (2018). Southeast Asian region maritime connectivity and the potential development of the northern sea rout for commercial shipping. Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, 23(2), 25-46. https://doi.org/10.22452/jati.vol23no2.2.

• İşeri, E. (2009). The US grand strategy and the Eurasian heartland in the twenty-first century. Geopolitics, 14(1), 26-46. https://doi.org/10.1080/14650040802578658.

• John Pierpont Morgan. (2016). Four Horseman – (Subs – English) – Feature Documentary – Official Version [YouTube Video]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ej4W87pWB9E.

• Keller, B. (2002, November 27). Afghanistan? Young Americans can’t find it on map, survey finds. Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/education/afghanistan-young-americans-cant-find-it-on-map-survey-finds/2002/11.

• Kenton, W. (2021). Foreign aid. Investopedia. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/foreign-aid.asp.

• Kingdon, A. (2020, June 9). False flags, paperclips, and super spies: the secret Nazi origins of the CIA. Open Democracy. https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/countering-radical-right/false-flags-paperclips-and-super-spies-secret-nazi-origins-cia/.

• Kishi, K. & Theodorou, A. E. (2016, July 7). 6 facts about religious hostilities in the Middle East and North Africa. Pew Research. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/07/07/6-facts-about-religious-hostilities-in-the-middle-east-and-north-africa/.

• Knutsen, T. L. (2014). Halford J. Mackinder, geopolitics, and the Heartland Thesis. The International History Review, 36(5), 835-857. https://doi.org/10.1080/07075332.2014.941904

• Kreilkamp, A. (2012, December 7). “Rogue elements of U.S. government and military” smuggled heroin in dead soldiers bodies during Vietnam War. Exo-Permaculture. https://www.exopermaculture.com/2012/12/07/rogue-elements-of-u-s-government-and-military-smuggled-heroin-in-dead-soldiers-bodies-during-vietnam-war/.

• Lane, J. M., & Pretes, M. (2020). Maritime dependency and economic prosperity: Why access to oceanic trade matters. Marine Policy, 121, 104180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2020.104180

• Lee, M. A. (2001, May 1). The CIA’s worst-kept secret: Newly declassified files confirm United States collaboration with Nazis. Institute for Policy Studies. https://ips-dc.org/the_cias_worst-kept_secret_newly_declassified_files_confirm_united_states_collaboration_with_nazis/.

• Lindsey, J. M. (2016). Remembering Ho Chi Minh’s 1945 Declaration of Vietnam’s Independence. Council on Foreign Relations. https://www.cfr.org/blog/remembering-ho-chi-minhs-1945-declaration-vietnams-independence.

• Lyons, J. (2014, October 13). Foreign aid is hurting, not helping Sub-Saharan Africa. Le Journal International. https://www.lejournalinternational.fr/Foreign-aid-is-hurting-not-helping-Sub-Saharan-Africa_a2085.html.

• Machiavelli, N. (1998). The Prince [Translated by W. K. Marriott]. Chapel Hill, NC: Project Gutenberg. (Originally published in 1513). https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1232/1232-h/1232-h.htm.

• Macintosh, D. (2015). Book review: The end of history and the last man. Philosophy Now. https://philosophynow.org/issues/106/The_End_of_History_and_the_Last_Man_by_Francis_Fukuyama.

• Mackinder, H. J. (1904). The geographical pivot of history. The Geographical Journal, 23(4), 421-437. https://doi-org.libproxy.uncg.edu/10.2307/1775498

• Mackinder, H. J. (1919). Democratic ideals and reality: A study in the politics of reconstruction. New York City, NY: Henry Holt and Company.

• Mahan, A.T. (1949). The influence of sea power upon history, 1660-1793. (12th ed.). Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company. (Original work published 1890). http://www.gutenberg.org/files/13529/13529-h/13529-h.htm.

• Mahan’s The Influence of Sea Power upon History: Securing International Markets in the 1890s. (2017). Office of the Historian [U.S. State Department]. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1866-1898/mahan.

• Malishevski, N. (2019, December 15). The Pentagon’s map of Afghanistan: An Eldorado of mineral wealth and natural resources. Global Research. https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-pentagon-s-map-of-afghanistan-an-eldorado-of-mineral-wealth-and-natural-resources/32265.

• Milne, S. (2015, June 3). Now the truth emerges: How the US fueled the rise of ISIS in Syria and Iraq. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/03/us-isis-syria-iraq.

• Miron, J. A. & Feige, C. (2005). The Opium Wars, legalization, and opium consumption in China [Working Paper 11355]. National Bureau of Economic Research. http://www.nber.org/papers/w11355.

• Mogato, M. (2017, April 6). Philippines’ Duterte orders occupation of isles in disputed South China Sea. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-southchinasea-philippines/philippines-duterte-orders-occupation-of-isles-in-disputed-south-china-sea-idUSKBN1780NR.

• Morrison, W. M. (2019). China’s economic rise: History, trends, challenges, and implications for the United States [CRS Report to Congress]. Congressional Research Service. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RL/RL33534/98.

• Muggah, R. & Velshi, A. (2019, February 25). Religious violence is on the rise. What can faith-based communities do about it? World Economic Forum. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/02/how-should-faith-communities-halt-the-rise-in-religious-violence/.

• Nelson, A. K. (2001). Theodore Roosevelt, the Navy, and the War with Spain. In E. J. Marolda (Ed.), Theodore Roosevelt, the U.S. Navy, and the Spanish-American War (pp. 1-6). New York City, NY: Palgrave. https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2F978-1-137-05501-9.pdf.

• Nixon, R. (2011, April 14). U.S. groups helped nurture Arab uprising. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/15/world/15aid.html.

• Norton, B. (2020, January 22). OPCW investigator testifies at UN that no chemical attack took place in Douma, Syria. The GrayZone. https://thegrayzone.com/2020/01/22/ian-henderson-opcw-whistleblower-un-no-chemical-attack-douma-syria/.

• Nye, Jr., J. S. (2011, February 16). The Future of Power [Key Note Speech]. American Academy of Arts & Sciences, Cambridge, MA. https://youtu.be/W4FSzOMI-ds.

• Oliver, M. (2018, February 12). The banana wars: How the U.S. plundered Central America on behalf of corporations. All That’s Interesting. https://allthatsinteresting.com/banana-wars.

• OPCW. (2017). Report of the OPCW fact-finding mission in Syria regarding an alleged incident in Khan Shaykhun, Syria Arab Republic April 2017 [United Nations Security Council Report]. https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/N1720662.pdf.

• Palladino, R. (2019, March 7). OPCW FFM report on investigations into CW use in Douma, Syria on 7 April 2018. U.S. Embassy in Syria. https://sy.usembassy.gov/opcw-ffm-report-on-investigation-into-cw-use-in-douma-syria-on-7-april-2018/.

• Paterson, P. (2008). The truth about Tonkin. Naval History Magazine, 22(1). https://www.usni.org/magazines/naval-history-magazine/2008/february/truth-about-tonkin.

• Peoples under threat, 2018. (2018). Minority Rights Group International [Annual Report]. https://minorityrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Peoples-under-Threat-briefing-2018.pdf.

• Rahi, A. (2014, February 21). Why the Durand Line matters: It is time for Kabul to accept the legality of the border. The Diplomat. https://thediplomat.com/2014/02/why-the-durand-line-matters/.

• Ratzel, F. (1896). The history of mankind. New York City, NY: Macmillan and Co., Ltd.

• Ratzel, F. (2017). Lebensraum: a biogeographical study [translated into English by Tul’si (Tuesday) Bhambry]. Journal of Historical Geography, 61, 59-80. (Originally published in 1901). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhg.2018.03.001

• Review of Maritime Transport. (2018). United Nations Conference on Trade and Development [United Nations]. https://unctad.org/webflyer/review-maritime-transport-2018.

• Roosevelt, T. (1890, May 12). During the last two days [Letter to A. T. Mahan]. In Catalog of the Theodore Roosevelt centennial exhibit. Quarterly Journal of Current Acquisitions, 15(3), 106-164. https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/29780870.pdf.

• RT America. (2018). US Aid Went to Terrorists in Syria – Pentagon report [YouTube Video]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fQFgkZj-hw.

• RT America. (2019). Not-so-neutral ‘White Helmets staged chemical attacks’ [YouTube Video]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBsqqS44hN0.

• RT. (2011). 'Pentagon created Arab Spring over decade ago' [YouTube Video]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1eu7F7m0nI.

• Ruptly. (2020). LIVE: UN Security Council discuss OPCW report into Douma (ORIGINAL) [YouTube Video]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edmaIZ5Zew8.

• Savell, S. (2019). This map shows where in the world the U.S. military is combatting terrorism. Smithsonian Magazine. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/map-shows-places-world-where-us-military-operates-180970997/.

• Scott, P. D. (2003). Drugs, oil, and war: The United States in Afghanistan, Colombia, and Indochina. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

• Scott, P. D. (2018). Peter Dale Scott: Spooks, Planes, and Heroin in Indochina (1972) [Radio Interview] (Originally recorded in 1972). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=164WKs9Cck0.

• Sep 2, 1901 CE: Big Stick Diplomacy. (2020). National Geographic Resource Library. https://www.nationalgeographic.org/thisday/sep2/big-stick-diplomacy/.

• Sharp, J. M. (2006). U.S. Democracy Promotion Policy in the Middle East: The Islamist Dilemma [CRS Report to Congress]. (Released by WikiLeaks on February 2, 2009). https://wikileaks.org/wiki/CRS:_U.S._Democracy_Promotion_Policy_in_the_Middle_East:_The_Islamist_Dilemma,_June_15,_2006.

• Smith, W. D. (1980). Friedrich Ratzel and the origins of lebensraum. German Studies Review, 2(1), 51-68. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1429483.

• Spencer, D. S. (1988). A short history of geopolitics. Journal of Geography, 87(2), 42-

• 47. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221348808979512.

• Spykman, N. J. (1942). America's strategy in world politics: The United States and the balance of power. New York City, NY: Routledge.

• Spykman, N. J. (1944). The geography of peace. New York City, NY: Harcourt, Brace and Company.

• Strating, R. (2019, April 18). The Philippines pushback in the South China Sea. Australian Institute of International Affairs. https://www.internationalaffairs.org.au/australianoutlook/philippines-pushback-south-china-sea/.

• Syria chemical attack: What we know. (2017, April 26). BBC. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-39500947.

• Syria war: What we know about Douma chemical attack. (2018, July 10). BBC. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-43697084.

• The American Empire and its media. (2020). Swiss Policy Research. https://swprs.org/das-american-empire-und-seine-medien/.

• The Grayzone. (2020). OPCW leaks expose 'criminal' Syria cover-up -- and US media is silent [YouTube Video]. https://youtu.be/IML3FpuLH_Q.

• The IMF and the World Bank: Puppets of the neoliberal onslaught. (2000). The Thistle, 13(2). https://www.mit.edu/~thistle/v13/2/imf.html.

• Truong, D. (1987). Running drugs and secret wars. Covert Action Information Bulletin, 28, 3-5. https://covertactionmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/CAIB28-1987-2.pdf.

• Wallerstein, I. (1974). The rise and future demise of the world capitalist system: Concepts for comparative analysis. Comparative Studies in Society and History, 16(4), 387-415. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0010417500007520.

• Webb, W. (2019, February 7). Leaked Wikileaks doc reveals US military use of IMF, World Bank as “unconventional” weapons. Mint Press News. https://www.mintpressnews.com/leaked-wikileaks-doc-reveals-how-us-military-uses-of-imf-world-bank-as-unconventional-weapons/254708/.

• World Port Index. (2021). Maritime Safety Information [National Geospatial Intelligence Agency]. https://msi.nga.mil/Publications/WPI.