Geopolitics

International Relations has been analyzed trough many perspectives, Geopolitical thinking is one of them and on the next pages I will compare Halford Mackinder, Michael Klare and Francis Fukuyama’sideas based on four variables: Pivot areas; security issues; Us vs them; Reasons for war. Given that each author´s text covers different periods of history, there will be some clear differences, butalso some similarities.
Mackinder claims that the pivot region of the world´s politics is an area of Euro-Asia, this is makes sense given that this author explains how this territory . Fukuyama agreesthat Euro-Asia was a pivot area during the cold war given that the confrontation between the Soviet Union and the United States implied that nations had to ally with one of them, and most of thesenations were located in this region, and “Asia became a battleground for a variety of imported western ideologies” but he considers North America as a pivotal area too. When this tense period ended,those pivot areas remained as such “the larger and more developed countries of the world account for the greater part of world politics” which are located there, but it was likely that more areas wouldbecome pivotal, this due to the fact that “the triumph of the Western idea is evident in the total exhaustion of viable systematic alternatives to western liberalism”, the victory of this ideologyrepresented for the author the end of history, meaning that the ideological challenges for liberalism would cease so security matters would stop contemplating ideological rivalry as an issue. He saysthat “the worldwide ideological struggle will be replaced by economic calculation, the endless solving of ideological problems, environmental concerns, and the satisfactions of sophisticated consumerdemands”. Fukuyama acknowledges that most wars since 19th century have been fought based on the national interest to acquire more power which has legitimized expansionism and the use of military force...