CRITICAL ASSIGNMENT
There are several theoretical approaches to consider when discussing geopolitics. Three of these approaches are the Realist approach seen by Michael Klare; the Balance of Power theory outlined by Robert Skidelsky; and Social Constructivism theory used by Gearoid Ó Tuathail. After analysis of these three geopolitical theories, it becomes clear that the Realist approach and incorporated application of Halford Mackinder’s Heartland Thesis, demonstrated by Michael Klare, is the most persuasive and applicable in a contemporary setting.
Klare’s Realist Theory
Michael Klare applies realist theory to explain contemporary American international relations. In this explanation, Klare draws on the geopolitical thesis of Halford Mackinder. Mackinder’s theory explains that the state that controls the Heartland, which is land seen to be of geopolitical importance, will inevitably become a global superpower as they amass economic and political strength from that territory. Mackinder states “Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland; Who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island; Who rules the World-Island commands the World.” (Mackinder 1919: 150) Klare’s incorporation of a realist approach lies in the way he explains America adherence to the Heartland thesis. Klare demonstrates America’s desire to control the Heartland by overtly militaristic foreign policies in areas of great geopolitical competition. America had been involved in conflict in the resource rich and geopolitically sensitive area of the Middle-East for two years at the time of Klare’s writing; the extension of the conflict into the new decade furthers the persuasiveness of Klare’s realist theory. The realist analysis outlines that this involvement serves America self-interest and national security as control of this modern Heartland, and the economic power it provides, quells the dominance of other nations and allows America to become the global superpower. Klare also draws on the United State’s security and national defence documents to support his realist approach by saying “This document states explicitly that the ultimate purpose of American power is to prevent the rise of a competing great power.”(Klare 2003: 53) Klare’s reading makes it clear that a realist approach to the United States international relations, and application of Mackinder’s Heartland Thesis, are of benefit to geopolitical analysis in a contemporary setting.
Skidelsky’s Balance of Power Theory
Robert Skidelsky applies balance of power theory to explain the partnerships and alliances and their impact on geopolitics. The balance of power theory outlines and explores the control nation-states possess, and the way in which they amass power, in a geopolitical setting. In Skidelsky’s reading, he examines America’s balance of power, and the “Special Relationship” between the United States and Great Britain. He explains that domestic and international pressures, and the self-interest of both parties, will have influence over the partnership. This is seen in the Post-WWII era, as America imposed harsh financial agreements on Britain so to cripple their economy and allowed America to claim the status of a superpower. This American domination resurfaced in the Post-September 11 era as America and Britain, lead by George W Bush and Tony Blair, formed a new partnership in the “War on Terror”. The economic, financial and military might of the US allows them to shape the balance of power in their favour and ensure that they remain the global superpower. However, the creation of the European Economic Community can be seen as an attempt by Great Britain to challenge the monopoly on power possessed by America. In a contemporary setting, the balance of power theory is losing prevalence as the American stronghold on power tightens. Application of Mackinder’s theory will see America’s push for control in the Middle-Eastern “Heartland” in direct opposition to the equilibrium that balance of power theory advocates. As Skidelsky states “This imbalance ... gives the United States more scope to fashion a world to its own liking” (Skidelsky 2002: 55) Therefore, due to the divergence from the geopolitical system that balance of power theory advocates, Skidelsky’s writings lose their persuasiveness in a modern setting.
Ó Tuathail’s Constructivism Theory
Gearóid Ó Tuathail uses a discourse based approach to discuss geopolitics. He places an emphasis on language and the labels used in geopolitics, and examines the subsequent affect this has on international relations and geopolitics. The constant use of labelling terms by Ó Tuathail, such as “First World”, “Vital Centre”, and “Imperialist West” preposition the reader to a certain geopolitical outlook, and demonstrates that the labels attached to certain territories will affect the way that territory is perceived geopolitically. This aspect of constructivism theory has a base in Mackinder’s geopolitical ideals. Ó Tuathail acknowledges Mackinder’s tendency to label “huge swaths of the world’s territory with a singular identity” (Ó Tuathail 2006: 19) and goes on the say that “this loss of geography is, as we shall see, a recurrent feature in geopolitical discourses.”(Ó Tuathail 2006:19). In addition to labelling territory, the constructivism theory recognises the power of language when discussing themes and motives behind geopolitical policies. This was seen in the ideological warfare of The Cold War era, and more recently by US president George W Bush. During The Cold War, the Soviet Union was portrayed as attacking “American Values.” But one must ask what these values are and who defines them. In more recent times, US President George W Bush has employed a discourse based approach to justify the invasion of Iraq. Bush labelled this geopolitically sensitive area as the “Axis of Evil” and coined the term, “War on Terror” to describe the conflict. These ambiguous, yet emotive terms show the persuasiveness of language and the affect it has on the popularity and success of geopolitical strategies.

After analysis of three geopolitical theories, it becomes apparent that a realist approach is the most influential in the study of geopolitics. Robert Skidelsky’s outline of the balance of power theory shows that in a contemporary setting, the theory loses its credibility. In doing so, he proves that America’s desire for power steams from self-interest and a desire for power, thus supporting a realist approach. Ó Tuathail constructivism and discourse based approach is more of a theory used to discuss geopolitics and analyse the policies employed, rather than outline the geopolitical stance each nation-state takes. Therefore, it remains that Michael Klare’s realist analysis of geopolitics is the most persuasive and relevant theoretical approach in a contemporary setting.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Mackinder, H.J. Democratic Ideals and Reality. New York: Holt, 1919

Ó Tuathail, Geroid. 2006. Section from Introduction to Part One. The Geopolitical Reader. Oxford: Routledge. 17 - 21

Ó Tuathail, Geroid. 2006. The Cold War as a Geopolitical System. The Geopolitical Reader.
Oxford: Routledge. 62 - 65

Skidelsky, Robert. 2002. Imbalance of Power. Foreign Policy. March/April. 129. 46 - 55.

Discourse Analysis. http://www.ischool.utexas.edu/~palmquis/courses/discourse.htm. 1.4.2010