Mainstream Theories of International Relations

Research on terrorism is often viewed as having so many complications, as it deals with radical religious fundamentalists who view themselves as observing their so called religious rights as in the case of Boko Haram in Nigeria. Sandal & James, (2010) argued that religion has become an important topic on today’s policy agenda.

Policy-makers are no longer able to get around religion’s role in conflict and peace, and in particular in conflict prevention and peace building.

46

However, religion, like race, ethnicity and gender, stayed on the backburner in the study of International Relations (IR) for a long time (Carment and James, 1997a, 1997b: 195–198). Bouta, Kadayifci-Orellana & Abu-Nimer, (2005) argued that, one of the events that contributed to a re-examination of the role of religion in politics was the growing realization among scholars of international relations that religion is an important factor in global politics. The numerous events that led to this realization include; the Iranian Revolution, the September 11 attacks, subsequent

‘war on terror’, widespread employment of religious discourse in politics worldwide, the rise of Al-Qaeda on the international scene, and the ethno-religious conflicts such as those in the former Yugoslavia, Northern Ireland, Sri Lanka and Iraq. Fox &

Sandal, (2013) opined that, the successes of religious political parties and groups across the world ranging from the Christian Democrats in Europe to the Bharatiya Janata Party in India similarly illustrate religion’s expanding international profile.

There is also a growing recognition of the impact of religion on individual policy-makers and the influence of international religious figures such as the Pope and the Dalai Lama. While the Iranian Revolution was likely the earliest widely recognized event which showed religion’s influence on contemporary international relations.

Toft et al. (2011) argued convincingly that religion’s international influence had been increasing since the 1960s.

Religion ‘as a powerful constituent of cultural norms and values’ is deeply implicated in individual and social conceptions of peace, because it addresses some of the most profound existential issues of human life, such as freedom/inevitability, fear/security, right/wrong and sacred/profane (Said & Funk, 2002). With regard to Islam, Islam has a direct impact on the way that peace is conceptualized and the way conflicts are resolved in Islamic societies, as it embodies and elaborates upon its

47

highest morals, ethical principles and ideals of social harmony. Irrespective of the Islamic tradition to which they adhere, Muslims agree that Islam is a religion of peace and that the application of Islamic principles will bring justice, harmony, order, and thus peace (Kadayifci-Orellana, 2005).

Therefore, the marginalization of religion, in sum, is due to the reluctance of scholars of IR to seriously incorporate religion as a variable to be used in IR discipline rather than the nature of IR per se. Religion can indeed be employed as a variable in explanatory IR theory as a part of ostensibly objective accounts of what is going on ‘out there’. Even the most apparently distant and challenging strands of IR theory can accommodate religion in one way or another. Such an accommodation, indeed, is necessary if we want to make more sense of domestic and international politics as well as foreign policy decisions in a world that simply refuses to be purely secular (Appleby, 1999).

It is important, however, to note that International Relations theories mostly deal with scientific research that uses variables that can be measured. It does not deal with intangible things like religion, faith, norms and so on. In this study, Boko Haram is the unit of analysis and all IR theories cannot fully explain it. This is due to the group’s religious inclinations, faith and other forms of psychological thoughts which can not be measured using any of the IR theories. The mainstream theories are reluctant to factor in religion in their analysis and therefore, treat religion as an abstract, private, unobservable and immaterial phenomenon lacking the qualities of objective reality (Mgba & Ukpere, 2013). Nevertheless, Liberalism has some elements which argue that state actors such as individuals, groups, non-governmental organizations (NGO’s), civil societies, social movements etc. do play major roles in IR, and not only the state (Viotti & Kauppi, 2013).

48

To further clarify, the researcher explains the strengths and limitations of the main IR Theories that begins with Realism, then Liberalism, Structuralism, Feminism and Constructivism theories respectively.

3.1.1(a) Realism Theory

Realism is an approach to the study and practice of international politics. It emphasizes the role of the state and makes a broad assumption that all nation-states are motivated by national interests, or, at best, national interests disguised as moral concerns. The central focus of this school of thought is that it explains international relations in terms of power (Goldstein & Pevehouse, 2014).

However, Boko Haram in its nature has to do with religious ideology, and realist treatment of religion is however simply naive and in a certain way unscientific. It fails to acknowledge the effects religious identity and values have in the construction of state policies. Its assumption of a monolithic state with a common national interest negates the reality of “a multifarious body of primarily bureaucratic organizations and institutions” (Haynes, 2004:454).

Similarly, realism has also proved limited in explaining the profound changes taking place in the international system that impact seriously on the territoriality/sovereignty of states, changes that emanate in some part from religious actors and organizations. Like the Islamic fundamentalist groups i.e. ISIS, al-Qaeda, Boko Haram etc. Boko Haram sprung up as a treat to the Nigerian state, through terrorizing the citizens and giving unrealistic demands to the government.

Also, the terrorist attacks of 9/11 2001 in U.S, 3/3 2004 in Madrid, 7/7 2005 in London, etc. masterminded by the al-Qaeda terrorist network have changed the whole character of global politics in ways unimaginable before now. American

49

response was to change its military doctrine from that of Cold War deterrence to Bush’s doctrine of a unilateral, preemptive war on terror, waged against individual acts of violence and linked to states wherever possible. In fact, many observers think that the entire system of states has been compromised and may be in the process of being superseded and therefore require explanations from realists (Mgba & Ukpere, 2013).

Therefore, realism is perhaps the oldest and still the dominant form of IR theory. Its main arguments are well known and need only brief mention here. First, states are the main actors in international relations. Second, international system is anarchic in the sense that there is no higher authority above the state. Third, national interest often defined as power, is the basis for state behaviour. Fourth, conflict sometimes leading to war is a natural and persistent feature of international relations.

If war can be avoided, though temporarily, it is because of the tendency of states to balance each other. Fifth, international institutions are marginal to the game of international relations; they are wholly subservient to great power whim and manipulation and are effective only as far as great powers allow them to be (Acharya, 2008).

In line with all these postulations on realism, it is evident that it cannot support in explaining the impact of Boko Haram (as non-state actors) on trade in North-East Nigeria.

3.1.1(b) Liberalism Theory

Liberalism is one of the main schools of international relations theory founded on ideas of liberty and equality. Liberalism comes from the Latin word liber meaning "free", referred originally to the philosophy of freedom. With the proper

50

institutions and diplomacy, Liberals believe that states can work together to maximize prosperity and minimize conflict. It is further viewed as a political doctrine that takes protecting and enhancing the freedom of the individual to be the central problem of politics. Liberals typically believes that government is necessary to protect individuals from being harmed by others, but they also recognize that government itself can pose a threat to liberty (Terence, B. et al. 2018).

Therefore, let’s begin by tracing the emergence of liberalism in IR to two leading thinkers of the enlightenment: Thomas Paine and Immanuel Kant. The works of Paine and Kant highlighted all the core principles of liberalism and illustrated the variations (and tensions) within the liberal tradition. After discussions on two strands of classical liberalism, an assessment of recent empirical research probes the claims that democratic institutions, economic interdependence and international institutions facilitate peace (David & Thomas, 2012).

First and most importantly, democratic states (i.e. Nigeria, U.S.A. etc.) are less likely to initiate and escalate conflicts with other states (also known as the

‘democratic peace theory’). Secondly, democratic states are more likely to engage in international trade and investment, and the resultant interdependence will contribute to peace. Thirdly, democratic states are more likely to seek cooperative solutions through international institutions. While there are significant differences between individual liberal thinkers, all have a general faith in the pacifying effects of political liberty, economic freedom, interdependence and international association (David &

Thomas, 2012).

Liberalism in both theory and practice is concerned with promoting social outcomes that are, as far as possible, the result of free individual choices. However,

51

the choice of one person that does not respect the equal freedom and rights of others is invalid (John & Elisa, 2008).

Therefore, the peaceful effect of trade is the second pillar of liberalism. Paine frequently pointed to how economic interactions would reduce misunderstandings that might lead to conflict. Paine (1791/2:172) asserted that ‘free trade creates a pacifying system, operating to cordialize mankind, by rendering nations, as well as individuals, useful to each other . . . If commerce were permitted to act to the universal extent it is capable, it would eradicate the system of war’. While Kant also saw trade leading to peace, his reasoning was somewhat distinct from Paine’s. A less utopian and more pragmatic Kant posited that trade may lead to peace because of shared interests of international financiers and businessmen. Kant (1795: 114) claimed that ‘the spirit of commerce sooner or later takes hold of every people, and it cannot exist side by side with war. And of all the powers (or means) at the disposal of the power of the state, financial power can probably be relied on most’ (emphasis in original). Kant (1795: 114) also argued that ‘states find themselves compelled to promote the noble cause of peace, though not exactly from motives of morality. And wherever in the world there is a threat of war breaking out, they [trading states] will try to prevent it by mediation’.

Therefore, that is why today the government of Nigeria is on its toes day and night trying to find a lasting solution to the menace posed by Boko Haram in all its ramifications especially with regards to trade, investments and all other business related activities as this is one of the governments major source of revenue (through tax, levies etc.).

52

Also in the case of Boko Haram posing treat to business activities in the Sahel region, neighboring countries like the Republics of Cameroon, Niger, Chad and Benin entered into an alliance with Nigeria (in 2015) to form a Multinational Joint Task Force with the mandate to crush the dreaded Boko Haram.

3.1.1(c) Structuralism Theory

Structuralism theory is a school of thought whose ideas are rooted in Marxist analysis and focus on how the dominant economic structures of society affect (i.e., exploit) class interests and relations. The image of the world in this school of thought is fundamentally different from the realist and liberal images. Marxist and Neo-Marxist international relations theories are structuralist paradigms which reject the realist/liberal view of state conflict or cooperation; instead focuses on the economic and material aspects (Viotti & Kauppi, 2013).

However, seeing the overall economic or class structure of the international system means one must examine more than just the distribution of power among states (realists) or chart the movements of transnational actors and the internal political processes of states (liberals). Though important, such actors, processes and relations are part of a world shaped by global social and economic structures or forces whose impact is not always readily apparent in the day-to-day world of domestic and international political competition. These forces condition and predispose actors (state as well as non-state) to act in certain ways; they also account for the generation of these actors in the first place. In other words, while realists tend to view state actors and their interests as givens, economic structuralists are interested in explaining how they came into existence in the first place (Dougherty &

Pfaltzgraff, 1996).

53

By structure, Marxists typically mean global class formations as in the bourgeoisie or capitalists in various countries that occupy a position of dominance over the ‘downtrodden’ – the worker (proletarian) and peasant classes. Another Marxists, or modified, ‘neo’- Marxist, understanding sees global capitalist structures of dominance by core of advanced capitalist countries over the periphery of capital-poor countries with some countries caught in between-the semi periphery. Both Marxist and non-Marxist economic structuralists also paint a picture of exploitative relations in which the capital-poor countries of the South are kept in a position of dependency or bondage by the capital-rich countries of the North through various discriminatory practices adverse to these countries caught on the downside of the global economic structure of world capitalism. So it is worthy to note that, Marxist tend to focus on class structure, while neo-Marxist look to other forms of structure.

Also, Marxist refer readily to the bourgeoisie or capitalist class that establishes a structure of global dominance over the working class or peasantry; non-Marxist are less concerned with relations among classes or class conflict, generally prefer to describe economic structures of dependency as between the capital-rich countries of the North and the capital-poor countries of the South or, more simply, North versus South, rich versus poor, haves versus have-nots (Viotti & Kauppi, 2013).

Therefore, it is clear that the structuralist school of thought or structuralism theory deals with the various segments of the society especially with regards to economic and material aspects. This theory cannot in any way help in explaining the impact of Boko Haram on trade in North-East Nigeria, so that is why it was not incorporated fully in this research as either the dominant or supporting theory.

54 3.1.1(d) Feminism Theory

Feminism as a theory of international relations is a broad term given to works of those scholars who have sought to bring gender concerns into the academic study of international politics and protestors of advertisements which use sexualized images of women to market products. The Feminist approaches to international relations became popular in the early 1990s. Such approaches emphasize that women's experiences continue to be excluded from the study of international relations (Zalewski, 2007).

International Relations Feminists who argue that gender relations are integral to international relations focus on the role of diplomatic wives and marital relationship that facilitate sex trafficking. Early feminist IR approaches were part of the ‘Third Great Debate’ between positivists and post-positivists. They argued against what they saw as the positivism and state-centrism of mainstream international relations. Tickner, (1997) argues that these approaches did not describe what a feminist perspective on world politics would look like.

However, Feminist scholars focus on gender as a category of analysis or factor in order to highlight an overlooked perspective on social, political and economical issues. Much of contemporary feminism is committed to progressive goals, particularly achieving equality for women through the elimination of discrimination and unequal gender relations. Gender, which embodies relationships of power inequality, is understandably the starting point. Feminists who define gender as a set of socially and culturally constructed characteristics share an affinity with the social constructivists (Viotti & Kauppi, 2013).

55

So therefore, it is important to note that the Feminists theory cannot explain the impact of Boko Haram on trade in North-East Nigeria as this has nothing to do with gender issues.

3.1.1(e) Constructivism Theory

Constructivism is the claim that significant aspects of international relations are historically and socially constructed, rather than inevitable consequences of human nature or other essential characteristics of world politics. In recent years, constructivism has provided a provocative and intriguing challenge to realist and liberal conceptions in particular. The starting point for constructivists is the claim that realists and liberals take for granted the interests and the identities of actors which are actually quite malleable, constructed and subject to change by the actors themselves. Constructivists take on the typical realist claim that actors have a more or less fixed nature that they are and seemingly always will be self-interested and security conscious. Whether due to what they see as an unbending or essentially unchanging human nature or the eternal existence of an anarchic international environment, realists tend to see states continuing to compete for power, influence and prestige (Viotti & Kauppi, 2013).

However, in the first half of the 20^th century, European states were engaged in two major world wars, supposedly in defense of their respective national interests.

But now Europe has created what amounts to a zone of peace, and it is hard nowadays to imagine that for centuries Germany and France had been bitter, war prone rivals. How could a realist explain this development? From a constructivist perspective, actors or ‘agents’ constitute or shape over time their own social context and this context in turn shapes the behaviors and identities we observe. Concepts such as ‘interest’, ‘sovereignty’ and ‘anarchy’ are exactly the concepts given

56

meaning by actors, not eternal, unchanging aspects of reality beyond the control of these agents (Viotti & Kauppi, 2013).

Finnemore & Sikkink (2001) opined that, Constructivism is an approach to social analysis that deals with the role of human consciousness in social life. It asserts that human interaction is shaped primarily by ideational factors, not simply material ones; that the most important ideational factors are widely shared or

“intersubjective” beliefs, which are not reducible to individuals; and that these shared beliefs construct the interests of purposive actors.

Constructivism is about human consciousness and its role in international life (Ruggie 1998:856). Therefore, Constructivists focus on the role of ideas, norms, knowledge, culture, and argument in politics, stressing in particular the role of collectively held or “intersubjective” ideas and understandings on social life.

Specifically, constructivism is an approach to social analysis that asserts the following: (a) human interaction is shaped primarily by ideational factors, not simply material ones; (b) the most important ideational factors are widely shared or

“intersubjective” beliefs, which are not reducible to individuals; and (c) these shared beliefs construct the interests and identities of purposive actors (Adler 1997, Price &

Reus-Smit 1998, Ruggie 1998, Wendt 1999). Constructivism focuses on what Searle (1995) has called “social facts”—things like money, sovereignty, and rights, which have no material reality but exist only because people collectively believe they exist and act accordingly.

However, Constructivism is viewed as a different kind of theory from realism, liberalism, or marxism and operates at a different level of abstraction.

However, Constructivism is viewed as a different kind of theory from realism, liberalism, or marxism and operates at a different level of abstraction.