ABSTRACT
This study intends to critically carry out an assessment among other things, role the United States is playing in the fight against terrorism; whether the United States actions conform with international laws and conventions. In order to research on the problem, the following hypotheses were formulated to guide the study; the war on terrorism has affected terrorists financing; the war on terrorism has had significant impact on global security. The Power Theory was found viable as an analytical tool because it is most suitable for the study. The theory posits that wealth and military strength cannot make a state super power, but that states also need a high level of influence as in the case with the United States. That is why the United States is referred to as super power, because it possesses military strength, wealth and influence over most nations. In order for us to achieve the objectives of this study, information were derived through content analysis of articles, documents, journals, internet sources, magazines, monographs and books related to the study. The study found out that the United States did not declare war against terrorism because it was interested in the security situation in Afghanistan in particular and the world in general, but because the Taliban and their allies finally engaged in activities that directly harmed the United States.
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND OF STUDY
Terrorism is a phenomenon that governments around the world
have come to fear. According to Jenkins (1975:1), terrorism is referred to as, a strategy whereby violence is used to produce certain effects in a group of people so as to attain some political end or ends, and one of the effects of such a strategy is often fear, although there are also other effects. Thornton (1964:73), in his contribution sees terrorism as the use of terror as a symbolic act designed to influence political behaviour by extra normal means, entailing the use of a threat of violence. Terrorism therefore may achieve political ends by either mobilizing forces sympathetic to the cause of the terrorists or by immobilizing the forces of the incumbent authorities.
Terrorism is a phenomenon that governments around the world have come to fear. According to O’Connor (1987:149);
The problem of how to deal with the threat of terrorism has been grappled with by political leaders of virtually every democratic nation (O’ Connor, 1987:149).
Since the Second World War, there have been hundreds of terrorists groups operating world wide, each pursuing its own political agenda that ranges from aircraft hijackings, hostage taking and embassy and department store bombings, to the assassination of political leaders and diplomats. According to Bush (1988:131);
Combating this continuing stream of terrorist events has proved a troublesome political issue for democratic governments, especially when trying to protect their citizens and property overseas (Bush, 1988:131).
Governments can usually enact legislation to guard against terrorism at home and develop their domestic, law enforcement agencies to detect and deter potential local events. It can also exercise a large measure of control when resolving events such as hostage situations that have already unfolded domestically, but when faced with events overseas, far from their geographic sovereignty, governments are especially vulnerable and terrorists know this. It is a notable fact that some states have regarded terrorism as one means of conducting foreign relations. In this view therefore, Davis (1990:10) posited that, Libya under Murmah Ghadaffi, established a large network of training camps which at times gave support to specific attacks. He went further to state that during the 1980s, Libya trained as many as seven to eight thousand terrorists and guerillas per year, spent approximately one hundred million US dollars on arms and financial disbursement to Palestinian terrorists, shared intelligence with terrorists groups, provided transport aboard Libyan airlines, supplied false passports and save-housed terrorists operating in Europe (Davis, 1990:10).
Suffice it to say therefore that, the activities of terrorists escalated and came to limelight in contemporary times, as a result of the terrorists’ attacks on World Trade Centre and the Pentagon on the 11th of September, 2001, popularly referred to as “9/11”.
According to Andreani (2004:31), September 11th was for all to see, an act of war. The sheer magnitude of the attacks, their merciless violence, plus the world wide impact of the damages, immediately imposed the word “WAR” as the only one commensurate with the event and the outrage it had provoked. Less than 30 days after the attacks, President George W. Bush of the United States, declared ‘WAR ON TERRORISM’ with a global reach and announced that the war would end “only with the eradication of this evil”. In the fall of 2001, the swift punishment of the perpetrators of these attacks, and the defeat of their Taliban accomplices following a lightening military campaign in Afghanistan, translated the US president’s promise into deeds.
The question one may wish to ask at this point is, “can the war on terrorism end with a declaration of final victory?” The impact of the September 11 attack on US has thus been contradictory. There is no doubt that it did deliver a salvage blow to America’s prestige, its economy and its international dignity. It has also helped justify a massive military build-up which has placed the United States in an even more dominant position than it was already. However, the knowledge or belief that terrorism is, directly or indirectly, the hostile act of another state provides the target state with a visible foe and creates the circumstances for the exercise of diplomatic or military responses, which includes, the imposition of military, economic or political sanctions and retaliation with the aim of deterring future terrorists attacks as evident in the case of Afghanistan.
It is imperative to state that the war on global terrorism may not end with a declaration of final victory, the use of the word, ‘war’ in reference to such evils, and to terrorism itself, rather than against a designated enemy, is essentially metaphorical. Based on the above, it is important to carry out a research on the United States war on terrorism and the impacts it has on global security, with a case study of Afghanistan, so as to ascertain the role the United States is playing, whether it is of selfish or of collective global interest.
1.2 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
According to a diplomat, as quoted by Ikenberry (2001:29),
“One knows where a war begins, but one never knows where it ends”. After the September 11 attacks, President George W. Bush, declared “war on terrorism” and announced that the war would end only with the eradication of this evil. Declaring a war against terrorism is warranted to the extent that there is a normative element in any war, so that success should confirm that certain types of behaviours are unacceptable and that the perpetrators can expect to see their efforts thwarted and eventually punished. The problem with this designation is that, it takes the war beyond the immediate cause and raises questions of what is to be included and excluded.
Many acts can be described as terrorism and they might be undertaken in the name of many causes. The use of the word, “war” in reference to terrorism itself, rather than against a designated enemy is essentially metaphorical. According to Freedman (2001:63); Al-Qaeda (which claimed to be behind the September 11 attacks on U.S) does not claim to be fighting a war for terrorism, but one that pits true Islam against Christianity and Judaism. Suffice it to say therefore that, according to the above statement, this is a war about the future of Islam and therefore about the grievance of all states with Muslim populations, and all conflicts in which Muslim groups are directly involved.
This statement which is credited to Osama Bin Laden has done more harm than good to the Muslim extremists in particular and global security in general, which is evident in the nearly everyday suicide bombings taking place all over the world. These extremists see this war, not against Christians alone, but the US which they have tagged “infidel”. The world is now faced with the mighty task of living with not just terrorism and its spate of violence, but its impacts on global security if not managed.
Suffice it to say here that, if careful efforts are not taken diplomatically, the “war against terrorism”, that is being championed by the United States of America, may lead to an adverse impact on global security that can even lead to a Third World War. Not also forgetting the number of lives and properties, including U.S tax payers’ monies that have being lost to this cause. Yet, the U.S is finding it difficult to completely curb terrorism, because these terrorist groups have continued to metamorphose in style and sophistication and not every country is cooperative with the U.S in its war against terrorism and means by which terrorism thrives, especially through terrorist financing.
To this effect, we raise the following research questions which
form the basis of this study.
1. Has terrorist financing affected the war on terrorism?
2. Has the war on terrorism had any impact on global security?
1.3 OBJECTIVES OF STUDY
The primary aim of this study is, amongst others, geared towards;
1. Analyzing the impacts of terrorist activities on global security.
2. Appraising the role the United States is playing in the war against terrorism, so as to ascertain whether it conforms with the stipulations of international law.
3. Assessing the undertones in U.S unilateral declaration of war on global terrorism.
4. Finding out the implications of the dual strategy employed by the United States in Afghanistan, in the war against terrorism.
1.4 SIGNIFICANCE OF STUDY
Studies in this subject have exhaustively pin pointed the negative impact of terrorism on global security, which no doubt has so far affected the peace and stability of the international community.
This study will form a basis for further research and a reference point in the study of war against terrorism. It will help to profer ways by which the fight against terrorism can be carried out diplomatically, so as to avoid any actions that may lead to a Third World War. The study will also throw more light on the nature of terrorism as well as a guide to students, institutions and countries that are involved and concerned about the war against terrorism and especially in Afghanistan.
1.5 SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS
As a result of time constraint, this study shall cover the war against terrorism after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States of America, to June, 2010, so as to appraise its effects and impacts on global security, using the experience of Afghanistan. The study encountered many obstacles in the process of carrying out this research work, which includes financial constraint which is the reason for my inability to visit Afghanistan for first hand information.
1.6 LITERATURE REVIEW
For easy understanding, due to the complex nature of this study, the literature review shall be carried out in three categories, namely;
1. The nature of terrorism
2. U.S and war on terrorism
3. Implications on global security
1.6.1THE NATURE OF TERRORISM
Terrorism has long exercised a great fascination especially at a safe distance, but it is not an easy topic for discussion and explanation.
According to Laqueur (1997:2);
The fascination it exerts and the difficulty of interpreting it have the same roots: it is unexpected, shocking and outrageous in character (Laqueur, 1997:2).
Where as civil war is predictable in many ways, it occurs in the light of day and there is no mystery about the identity of the participants; the distinguishing features of terrorism are anonymity and violation of established norms. Terrorism has always engendered violent emotions and greatly divergent opinions and images.
In order to appreciate the nature of terrorism, it is necessary to look at the definition of terrorism. According to Evans (1979:3), in as much as studies of the phenomenon of terrorism have been consistently plagued by vague and political definitions, the first step is to define the subject matter. He defined terrorism as a strategy whereby violence is used to produce certain effects in a group of people so as to attain some political end or ends. Jenkins (1975:2) posited further that, one of the effects of such a strategy is often fear, however, there can be, and usually are other effects. Thornton (1964:73) asserted that terrorism is the use of terror as a symbolic act designed to influence political behaviour by extra normal means, entailing the use of threat of violence.
The use of terror according to Wardlaw (1964:10) may be placed in the upper levels of a continuum of political agitation, above political violence such as riots. It is in the extra normal nature of the use of terror that distinguishes it from other forms of political violence. Cronin (2002:121) posited that, the term terrorism has evolved in centuries since terrorist tactics were first used. Terrorism, thus, at a minimum as posited by Freg and Morris (1991:3), contains three important elements; the creation of fear, the seemingly random use of violence, and attacks on the innocent. Terrorism may achieve political ends by either immobilizing the forces of the incumbent authorities. This is because the authorities have a certain initial advantage of the inertia which characterizes the normal political relationship between authority and citizenry.
Terrorism no doubt is a strategy whereby violence is used to produce certain effects upon a group of people. This strategy according to Evans (1979:4), is one of four ideal type strategies, whereby a group out of power can effect violent social change, the other three being coup d’état, insurrection, and guerilla warfare. Terrorism is not, according to Laqueur (1997:5) in his contribution, as frequently believed, a subspecies of guerilla or revolutionary warfare and its political function today is also altogether different. The nature of terrorism has changed greatly, this goes not only for its methods, but also for the aims of the struggle and the character of the people that were and are involved in it. It is further characterized by high symbolic content which contributes significantly to its relatively high efficacy. According to Thornton (1964:77);
If a terrorist comprehends that he is seeking a demonstration effect, he will attack targets with maximum symbolic value (Thornton, 1964:77).
According to Rapoport (1984:658-659), apparently cyclic in nature, terrorism seems to guise in relation to major international political watersheds, giving would-be terrorists a sense of opportunity as well as an increased vulnerability of societies to their methods and messages. Terrorism is not merely a technique; those practicing it have certain basic beliefs in common. According to Laqueur (1997:6), they may belong to the left or the right, they may be nationalists or, less frequently, internationalists, but in some essential respects their mental make-ups are similar. Those practicing terrorism are often closer to themselves or others. Terrorism is one of the most important and dangerous problem facing mankind today. It is not an ideology, but rather an insurrectional strategy that can be used by people of very different political convictions. While there is a clear historical lineage which may be traced between contemporary terrorism and its forebears in the French Revolution and the political movement of the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century, there are now evident significant departures from the nature and tradition.
According to Laqueur (1997:2), the popular image of terrorists some eight years ago was that of bomb throwing, alien anarchist, and fanatic, immoral, sinister and ridiculous at the same time. Social and technological changes have wrought their own direct effect on terrorist operations and their potential utility of effectiveness corresponding to these changes in the nature of terrorism; have been significant evolutions in terrorist philosophy and tactics. In his contribution, Walter (1969:310) said the changing nature of terrorism have resulted in a different threat to stability than that posed by it some centuries ago. Thus, an act of terrorism may have many aims, the primary effect is to create fear and alarm, but the objectives may be to give concessions, obtain maximum publicity for a cause, provoke, breakdown social order, build morale in the movement or enforce obedience to it.
The troubling nature of terrorism is the coupling of it with ideological zeal and the technological means to make the tactics potentially devastating to mass civilian population. That volatile combination effectively severed a state’s populace from the direct or indirect control of a state. The gradual transition of the nature of terrorism at the end of the fifteenth century away from direct state sponsorship of terrorism, according to Simon and Benjamin (2001:48), and towards more amorphous groups often having access to state resource but less likely to be under the control of the state itself, is a potentially serious development. Obviously, states are far from helpless, but in increasingly globalized international environment, the traditional state centric means of responding to such a threat will not work and may even be counter productive.
In the age of terrorism according to Guelke (1995:47), this threat will be as much psychological as physical, requiring both resolve and subtle responses that modern democracies have found difficult to master or sustain. In this age, the nature of terrorism will be a struggle over ideas, and the out come will determine whether U.S leadership in the global system will continue. If the United States and its allies are to prevail, we must according to Cronin (2002:120), adjust our understanding of the predominant paradigm of international security, including the nature of terrorism, the most promising response to it and the likely counter attacks by terrorists that may occur in this new conflict and also revise our assumptions about the making of a successful strategy
in response.
1.6.2 U.S AND WAR ON TERRORISM
Terrorism is a phenomenon that governments around the world have come to fear. O’Connor (1987:143) posited that the problem of how to deal with the threat of terrorism has been grappled with the political leaders of virtually every democratic nation. According to Andreani (2004:34), less than ten days after the attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon, President George W. Bush declared war on terrorism with a global reach and announced that the war would end only with the eradication of this evil. Therefore, in the fall of 2001, the swift punishment of the perpetrators of these attacks, and the defeat of Taliban accomplices following a lightening military campaign in Afghanistan, translated the U.S President’s promise into deeds. One may view the use of the word “war” to refer to the fight against terrorism as a natural consequence of the enormity of the September 11 attacks and of the hatred for America that they expressed.
According to Rubin (2002:73);
For years, certain American actions such as the country’s support for Israel and for unpopular, oppressive Arab regimes had supposedly produced profound governance throughout the Middle East. Those governances came to boil overtime and finally spilled over on September 11, the result was more than three thousand American deaths (Rubin, 2002:73).
The war moreover, has only made matters worse. Cox (2002:274) posited that it is partly because of the way in which it was conducted by the United States and increasingly because of the American urge to carry it forward against other countries. One may view the use of the word “war” to refer to the fight against terrorism as a natural consequence of the enormity of the September 11 attacks and of the hatred for America that they expressed. Andreani further asserted that, to call the fight against terrorism, a war entails some major drawbacks which are now even more apparent than they were in the aftermath of the September attacks. The use of the term “war” according to Howard (2002:143) is not only a matter of semantic. There has been, and will be, actual role for the military operations in fighting terrorist organizations. However, from the outset, the United States’ focus has been on terrorism, with a global reach which would seem to include not only internal terrorist movements, but also international movements focused on a given territorial cause. The main enemy is clearly loosely knit global Islamic networks of the AlQaeda type.
In his contribution, Freedman (2001:62) posited that declaring a war against terrorism by the U.S is warranted to the extent that there is a normative element in any war so that success should confirm that certain types of behaviours are unacceptable and that perpetrators can expect to see their efforts thwarted and eventually punished. Many acts can be described as terrorism and they might be undertaken in the name of many causes. According to Paul Rogers, as quoted by Cox (2002:274), the U.S war on terrorism is simply a euphemism for extending U.S control in the world. Whether it is by projecting force through its carriers or building new military bases in central Asia, it is becoming increasingly clear, though how clear remains open to speculation that, United States is not now engaged in war against terrorism at all. Instead, regimes the U.S
dislikes. Buttressing this view, Krauthammer (2001: 12) posited thus; The elementary truth that seems to elude the experts again and again is that power is its own reward. Victory changes everything; psychology above all. The psychology in the region is now one of fear and its deep, its time to deter, defeat or destroy other regions in the area that are host to radical Islamicterrorism (Krauthammer, 2001:12).
Success in the war against Afghanistan is thus encouraging the United States to think creatively about how to deal with other states and organizations it does not like. It is also generating a series of perhaps equally important tensions between itself and its European allies. Greenwood (2002:301), posited that the consensus about the illegality of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon did not lead to a similar consensus about the illegal questions raised by the U.S reaction. The legality of the United States’ resent to force against AlQaeda and the Taliban regime in Afghanistan; of the conduct of the hostilities which followed; of the status and treatment of prisoners held by the United States at the Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay have all been matters of criticism. Greenwood further stated that much of the controversy has its roots in the fact that the events of September 11, 2001 did not fit easily within any of the obvious categories of international law. Likewise, United States has been worrying policy makers for years, but in the context of U.S foreign and defense policy priorities. According to Pillar (2001:29), terrorism was seen as one of several important competing priorities. The U.S war on terrorism, according to Andreani (2004:31) cannot end with a declaration of final victory, any more than can the war on crime or the war on drugs. The use of the word “war’ in reference to terrorism itself, rather than against a designated enemy, is essentially metaphorical. Yet in the case of September 11, the use of the word “war” has gone far beyond a metaphor to acquire a strategic reality. According to Rubin (2002:78) since the United States’ declaration of war on terrorism, American leaders have taken pains to remind the world and the American public that Islam and Arabs are not U.S enemies. Rather, its war on terrorism is focused to be behind the September 11 attacks regimes that support terrorism. Freedman stated further that Al-Qaeda does not claim to be fighting a war for terrorism but one that pits true Islam against Christianity and Judaism in terms of Echoes Huntington’s clash of civilizations. According to Huntington (1993:25), the conflicts of the future will occur along the cultural fault lines separating civilizations. These includes Western, Islamic, Confucian, Japanese, Hindu, Slavic,
Orthodox, Latin American and possibly, African civilization. President Bush along with the then British Prime Minster, Tony Blair, denied this claim, correctly asserting that Osama Bin Laden does not speak for Islam. However, speaking for Islam is Bin Laden’s objective. Therefore, this is a war about the future of Islam and therefore about the governance of states with Muslim populations and all conflicts in which Muslim groups are directly involved. The United States has became a target because it is an over weeping, hegemonic and profoundly decadent power and this position, according to Freedman, has acted internationally on behalf of the enemies of Islam or apostates. In the words of Cox (2002:274); The impact of September 11 has been contradictory. There is no doubting that it did deliver a savage blow to America’s prestige, its economy and its international amour, proper. However, such has been the strength of the American response that the longer term result has been to enhance US credibility to create a sense of the international purpose where before, there was none to unite the nation around some fairly powerful themes and to leave the United States in an extraordinary powerful position in Central Asia (Cox, 2002:274).
This no doubt is America’s motive, aside fighting terrorism, for embarking on the war on terrorism. The war on terrorism has helped to justify a massive military build-up, which will place the United States in an even more dominant position than it was already. The U.S war on terrorism also provides a set of economic answers to the problems by the Americans.
1.6.3 IMPLICATIONS ON GLOBAL SECURITY According to Cronin (2002:130), in the twentieth century American strategic thinking was primarily shaped by the growth of first; airpower and then nuclear power. And by the end of the twentieth century, the United States became accustomed to facing the prospect of major interstate wars, especially after the Vietnam War. The ultimate purpose was to raise the enemy’s costs and risks and lower those of the U.S; either by deterring the use of force to begin with or massively responding with overwhelming force when aggression did occur. In his contribution, Gordon (2001:17) posited that the U.S is now facing an entirely different type of threat, one that cannot be approached with familiar American strategic thinking. It is no doubt extremely difficult to raise the costs of terrorism significantly, since terrorists only need a free success on the margins to make a political point. In the case of Al Qaeda network for example, the symbolic benefit of the massive attack on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon outweighed any individual rational man calculus of costs, as was seen in the willingness of the hijackers to die with their victims. Ultimately therefore, terrorists are spoilers. Nobody can be safe everywhere, all the time. The U.S war on terrorism has so far suggested that the future of the international system is at stake. Attacking and destroying the regime in Afghanistan was a relatively easy task. Attempting to take the war against terrorism forward against other countries which have no intention of attacking the United States and have far greater capabilities, would be not only far more difficult but positively dangerous. The war on terrorism is being perceived in some quarters, particularly the Al Qaeda network, as a war against Islam by Christian and Jewish faithfuls. According to Freedman (2001:63), Al-Qaeda does not claim to be fighting a war for terrorism but one that depicts true Islam against Christianity and Judaism. This statement has serious negative implications on global security, due to the fact that majority of the attacks by terrorist groups are targeted against innocent Christians. A notable case is the Osama Bin Laden’s “Fatwa” published through a Londonbased Arabic newspaper in 1998, urging Muslims to kill Americans and their allies, Christians especially so as to liberate the Al-Aqusa mosque in Jerusalem and the holy mosque in Mecca from their grip. Laden stated further that, the driving away Jihad against the U.S does not stop with its withdrawal from the Arabian peninsular but rather it must desist from aggressive intervention against Muslims in the whole world. With this development, particularly in this era of technological advancement and nuclear arms enrichment, the globe will be more unsafe if these sophisticated arms get to the hands of terrorists. In another development, the war on terrorism has pitched the United States and its allies against enormous set of problems, including direct responsibility for a new postTaliban Afghanistan government faced with myriad challenges, not the least of which is pervasive food insecurity. According to Cronin (2002:130), whatever has been achieved militarily, if U.S and its allies do not apply dramatic measures to remedy the humanitarian situation, including massive economic assistance unseen since the years immediately following the second world war, they will loose the campaign against terrorism on political and cultural grounds and the results will be no less devastating to western security in particular and the world in general.
The U.S war on terrorism has turned Afghanistan into a breeding ground for terrorism, as well as the fact that the violence in Afghanistan is committed by insurgents and terrorists and cannot be ascribed to terrorists alone. According to Andreani (2004:46), the respective weights of the insurgency and global Al-Qaeda type movements in Afghanistan today is difficult to assess. Afghanistan is at best a costly distraction from the fight against terrorists, and has probably made matters worse by providing them a new cause. An American led occupation in the heart of the Arab world; a shelter provided by growing disorder in Afghanistan, appears to have perversely prompted Al Qaeda and its affiliates to adopt a more aggressive strategic direction, moving from scattered targets of opportunity to harder and move iconic targets in the broader Middle East and Europe.
Since the current war on terrorism began, there has been increased public fear of threat of biological warfare. The confirmed cases of another that was diagnosed in the United States have added to this alarm. These dangers that governments put under pressure by such alarm, may initiate uncoordinated, badly targeted or even counter-productive polices, based upon inadequate risk and threat assessments, and may therefore constitute threat to international security. The danger of terrorism according to Subsrahmaniyam (1993:49) involves more response than defense programs. The U.S in its war on terrorism must assign a higher priority and devote more funding to intelligence and law enforcement programs that could help the authorities penetrate those terrorists groups planning attacks, as well as the intelligence efforts that illuminate the nature of the proliferation threat more generally.
One of the greatest impacts of the current war on terrorism on global security is that, it has recorded increased security consciousness among international organizations and states of notable instance. In response to the current war against terrorists on October 2nd 2001, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) involved Article 51 for the very first time in over fifty years of its history, which states that “an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all; and consequently, they agreed that if such an armed attack occurs, each one of them in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defense recognized by Article 51 of the charter of the United Nations, will assist the party or parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area”.
In the words of Freedman (2001:81);
The US war on terrorism has yet to run its course and there is no reason to suppose that future stages will be easier than the first. A drive of this sort cannot but shake up local and global political structures, often in quite surprising and unintended ways (Freedman, 2001:81).
Countries are revising their relations with others, pondering the opportunities for realignment. This U.S war on terrorism has brought about new alliances being fashioned. According to the former British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, in his speech on November 21, 2001, at the Mayor’s Bouquet, Guidhall, as quoted by Freedman, “the war on terrorism has led to the formulation of new world views and it is all happening fast”. There is a short cut through diplomacy, therefore, we should grasp the moment and move and not let out world slip back into rigidity. It is therefore imperative to state here that whether or not international politics will be so transformed at the end of this war on terrorism that it can be described as the Third World War remains to be seen. A key test will exactly show how the United States emerges from this war as an international actor.
1.7 THEORETICAL FRAME WORK
The theoretical frame work under which this study was examined is within the perspectives of the power theory. The power theory is one of the most frequently used in the study of political science, especially in international relations. The absence, according to James and Robert (1981:87), of adequate institutions and procedures at the international level for resolving conflict comparable to those in most domestic political systems makes the so called power element more obvious than at the domestic level. Schuman (1969:27) in his contribution posited that an international system lacking a common government, each unit necessarily seeks safety by relying on its own power and viewing with alarm the power of its neighbours. This is exemplified in the United States’ war on terrorism and the denial of, especially the Arab nations, the right to develop nuclear weapons. According to Sponeck and Halliday (2001:34); All civilized life rests in the last instance on power; power is the ability to move men in some desired fashion, through persuasion, purchase, barters andcoercion (Sponeck and Halliday, 2001:34).
According to the power theory, power is conceptualized both as a means and an end. In other words, power is man’s control over the minds and actions of other men. The power of a state therefore is said to consist of capabilities, some of which are economic in nature, such as levels of industrialization and productivity, gross national product, national income on a per capita basis. This no why explains why the United States can attack any sovereign state perceived to be in possession of nuclear weapons, or at the worst, it will claim that the sovereign state or legitimate government is supporting terrorists’ activities, as was the case of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan.
Burton (1942:46) in his contribution to the power theory, posited that;
There is probably no greater common factor in all thinking on international relations than the assumption that states depend for their existence upon power and achieve their objectives by power, thus making the management of power the main problem to be solved (Burton, 1942:26).
Power therefore may be used coercively or non-coercively. When power is used coercively, an actor is influenced if he adapts his behaviour in compliance with, or in anticipation of another actor’s demands, wishes or proposal. According to Holsti, as quoted by James and Robert (1981:89); Power has often been viewed as an influence relationship, that is, the ability of one actor to induce another to act in
some desired fashion or to refrain from undesired behaviour (James and Robert, 1981:89).
Suffice it to say therefore that, wealth and military strength are not necessarily sufficient to gain for a nation, the status of super power. Although, the development of military capabilities may provide a convenient and relatively inexpensive way towards influence, especially for poor states in a relatively short period of time. It is therefore pertinent to state here that, in accordance with the power theory exponents, wealth and military strength cannot make a state super power. States also need a high level of influence as in the case with the United States. That is why the U.S is refereed to as a superpower because it possesses both military strength, wealth and influence over most nations, particularly
Afghanistan. According to Klaus (1966:123);