The Importance of Africa to The World System After 9/11 Attacks: War on Terrorism or Integration for Sustainable Development

Realism as a theory of balance of power equilibrium in the heart of IR. The question is why and for what reasons?

The international system as envisaged by the realist is characterised the principles of power equilibrium and power rivalry relations between states or poles composed of states. The states are in quest of power and the balance of power equilibrium as the central hypothesis of the realists’ theory remains the best means of avoiding conflict between states on the world scale. States do not make friendship in international relations, what prevail is interest, interest is define in terms of power as a rationality principle of state action Max Weber. International politics is anarchic in the sense that there is no higher government (Waltz 1979 in Keohane 1984, p. 7). The realist therefore prefers the ethics of responsibility rather than the ethics of conviction (moral), it is better for a state to count on its personal capacity to defend itself than to rely on allies or international judicial system modelled in relation to the interest of the state. Keohane explains, where this world politics correct any cooperation as a result of overall patterns of conflict, alliance cooperation would be easily explained as a result of the operation of the balance of power. The British historian A.J.P Taylor defined a great power as one able to prevail in war. By implication, what this means is that, if international politics were a state of war, state would obviously use military force, and institutionalised patterns of cooperation would not exist as part of a larger struggle for power. Therefore, international agreement as we observe them on issues as trade, financial relations health, telecommunications, and environmental protection and so on would not be there.

The liberals accused the realist’s data of power equilibrium as a very static vision considered on military dimension and it renders the comprehension of evolution difficult in the international scene. The realist’s perception of relations between states is only conflicts and antagonism. They place more importance on the military whereas other factors could as well intervene in power rivalry relations between states.

The opponent to this realist view holds that, cooperation is essential in a world of economic interdependence. As professor Stanley Hoffmann of Harvard University has put it the link between positive strength and positive achievements have loosened. He explain with the example of accumulation of arm race since 1945, the devastation nuclear weapon can inflict, and the cost make nationalist leaders not to use them (Nye 2007, p. 10) They argue that shared economic interests create a demand for international institutions and rules (Mitrany 1975 in Keohane 1984, p.7), Keohane likened this to an institutionalist approach and explain by emphasizing on the functions performed by international institutions that, they run the risk of being naïve about power and conflict. He justifies his claim with the argument that proponent of institutionalist are excessively optimistic of the roles of ideals in world politics. (Young 1980, 337) claims sophisticated students of institutions and rules have a great deal to teach us. He explains they view institutions not simply as formal organizations with headquarters buildings and specialized staffs, but more broadly as recognize patterns of practice around which expectations converge. He explains why they regard this pattern as significant because they affect state behaviour and he justifies his claims that sophisticated institutionalists do not expect cooperation always to prevail, but are aware of the malleability of interests with the example of interdependence that create interests in cooperation during the post World War II predicted the world political economy with profound implications on human society. The institutionalists expected successful cooperation in one field to ‘’spill over’’ into other fields (Haas 1958, 1964). Institutionalists interpret the liberal international arrangement of trade, and international finance created by interdependence, called ‘’international regimes’’ (Keohane 1984, p.8) contained rules, norms, principles, and decision making procedures, as responses to policy coordination of institutions in the international system.

While the Marxists in the likes of Boukharine, R. Luxemburg, H.J.L Ferding, Lenin sees an uneven development and the construction of global capitalism leading to imperialism (capitalist domination in an economic world system); like realism and liberalism Marxism has the ambition of a global analysis and attempt to determine the general explicative variables to IR which place focus on the economy. Marxism viewed liberal economy as capitalism and build on the rejection of liberal economy, it deny the ability of the capitalist economy to balance itself based on the supply and demand laws (Gilpin 2004)The Marxist claim international relations can only be understood as an effect of dominant economic structure of the world capitalist system ,they seek to uncover exploitative dynamics in modern processes of international production, and argue it present such dynamics as infringements in global justice(Lenin 1917/1996; Van der Pijl 1998; Sklair 2001inRavenhill 2008, p.38) This shows the existence of antagonism inherent in the structure of capitalism. The rivalry between the proletariats urban workers and the bourgeoisie, has its origin in the mode of production, based on private ownership of the means of production and payment, they justify with evidence of multinational companies facilities of the centre and rich north, making huge profits by concentrating on labour power to command in different countries, and the difference of labour wage that functions on the principles of greater value, with exploitation and inequality in terms of exchange deterioration, exploitation of workers of the south poor periphery, and also by teaming up with the bourgeoisies of the centre and the bourgeoisies of the periphery to exploit the common man who form the majority in the south poor countries.(Caporazo 1978a; Wallerstein 1979; Cardoso and Falleto 1979; Cox1981,1987 in Katzenstein et al 1999). In other words, the dramatic situation of the countries of the south is explained by the exploitation of the periphery countries by the capitalistic imperialistic centre. Thus explains the unequal development of the African Gulf of Guinea countries in the international system in opposition to the realist and liberal views of mutual existence of riches.

The liberals complain that the realists portray the states as ‘’hard billiard balls careening off one another in an attempt to balance power. Again that the realist picture of a Hobbesian ‘’state of war’’ misses the growth of economic interdependence and the evolution of a transnational global society. But this is not enough because people do have contacts across borders and because there is an international society (Nye 2007, p. 5)

The realist responds to the institutionalists claim that these regimes were social constructions on the basis of the principles espoused by the US and that American power was essential for their construction and maintenance. In other words, the early post cold war regimes rested on the political hegemony of the united states (keohane, p. 9), the realist respond to the liberal claims that the liberals overstated the differences between domestic and international politics. That the international system is characterised by power rivalry relations between hegemonic powers, and responded by quoting Hobbes, ‘’just as stormy weather does not mean perpetual rain, so a state of war does not mean constant war’’