The President’s Decision On Ivory Coast

The President’s Decision On Ivory Coast From, International Relations Perspective

The Ivorian situation gave the academic society in Ghana an opportunity to make their presence felt in terms of writings, explaining paradigms that exists in the international arena and projections to inform the direction of ECOWAS, yet once again the debate has been driven by social commentators, foot soldiers and serial callers showing magnitude of ignorance and wrong information being churn out as the academic community just sit in the class rooms and offices looking on. It is based on this reason that I decided to write this article on the situation of Ivory Coast and ECOWAS in International Relations

The concept of the state system which implies how states behave and interact with other states has been the underlying principle for the evolution of international relations as a discipline and an academic subject. The chronological development in the international system of interconnected periods of peace and wars, alliance and factions, cooperation and successions has been the basis of the debate between international relations paradigms as to how the international system should operate and in this case the future of ECOWAS in relations to the Ivory Coast issue.

Regional bodies such as ECOWAS have attracted theoretical debates in international relations because of the dynamics involved and the pace set by the European Union. Countries are prepared to surrender part of their sovereignty for the general good of members as the EU has shown. This has been analysed in general terms by neo-functionalist and inter-governmentalist approaches. The central concern of these groups of mainly International Relations (IR) theorists has been the nature of the process of integration. The difference between the two camps are many, but have centred around three core differences:

The first concerned the actors involved in the process, whether supranational actors or alternatively, whether governments were the dominant participants in the process. Second, there is a concern with the process of integration. In particular, did integration take place as the result of intended or unintended consequences, did integration take place as a result of functional, cultivated and political spill-over, or did governments carefully control the delegation of authority and autonomy? Third, there is a concern with the ultimate objective of ECOWAS whether it is to create a new political community beyond the nation-state, or alternatively a necessary process to strengthen the nation-state. Behind these three differences lay the question of the extent to which ECOWAS can be assessed. For the majority of neo-functionalists, ECOWAS is a sui generis phenomenon, the product of particular economic, geographic and socio-cultural factors but, for the intergovernmentalists, ECOWAS is a regional grouping which could be explained by more general theories of interdependence.
Neorealism and Neoliberalism also takes the debate further to explore whether the cooperation attained in the integration process can be furthered to a point where it is impossible to reverse, or reversibility is possible at any point. These paradigms through their classical orientations from Realism and Liberalism will deduce contemporary issues such as the direction of ECOWAS.

Realists such as E.H. Carr and Hans Morgenthau who maintain that, since the international system remains anarchic with no central authority above the state system, all efforts to reform the international system which ignores the struggle for power will result in a failure. Realists also maintain that there is a worrying danger in the attempts to bring about fundamental changes which will compound the problems of international relations.

Ever since Woodrow Wilson attempted to use the settlement of World War I to found an international order based on national self-determination, liberal governance, and international economic exchange, liberalism has been associated with order in the field of international relations. Liberals emphasis on the active "ordering" of relations through sets of mechanisms and institutions that organize international relations and transactions according to principles such as multilateralism. The ordering that is associated with economic systems and the foreign policy goals of powerful states gravitates toward this aspect. Agency, in the form of purposive pursuit and maintenance of order by states, is a key feature here.
The end of the Cold War and the successes of the European Union in their quest for integration have thrown international relations into another debate. The advent and development of the European Union has changed the fundamental principles of sovereignty of states in the international system since the Westphalia treaty in 1648. Never in the history of the state system or international relations are states prepared to submit their sovereignty to an international body bearing in mind of loosing the control over their finances, economy, boarders and national policies. These states or countries are not just created new states, but the seat of the Westphalia treaty itself which brought about the concept of state in the international system, so if ECOWAS want to emulate the fate of the EU, then members will have to be aware of options they have.

Conceptualizing the concept of the ECOWAS s integration through the perspective of neorealism and neoliberalism, both of them thus express a widely accepted grounds, though problematic, social science paradigm suggesting a three-step analysis. First, there is the specification of a set of constraints. Then comes the stipulation of a set of actors who are assumed to have certain kinds of interests. Finally, the behavior of the actors is observed, and that behavior is related to the constraining conditions in which these actors, with their assumed interests find themselves. This perspective highlights the instrumental rationality of actors and focuses on decisions and choice.

Both are also normative theories of a sort, biased towards the state, the capitalist market and the status quo through the effect of globalization and to address new issues that comes with it. Out of these agreements also brings out disagreements among these paradigms concerning regional integration in terms of anarchy, international cooperation, relative gain against absolute gain, priority of state goals, intentions against capabilities, institutions and regimes
The literature on regional integration is rich with competing theoretical perspectives focused on multitude of effects of integration but has not satisfactorily dealt with its relation to state strength and the effects of globalization.
The clutch of theoretical account that have emerged out of the process of the regional integration has also challenged and offered rival narratives of how and why regimes of supranational governance can develop, and how closer cooperation in a relatively narrow, technical, economic spheres of life could generate a wider political integration among countries bringing diversity to the interpretation of the international system and seeking to change.
Neorealist dominates the world of security studies and neo liberals are more interested on political economy and more recently on the issues of human right and environment. Neo realists focus is concern with the issue of survival and claim that the neo liberals are too optimistic about the possibility of cooperation among states. Neo liberals counter with the claims that all states have mutual interests and can gain from cooperation which put ECOWAS in the frame.
Neo realists like Kenneth Waltz’s explanation is based on development and interaction in the international system. He distinguished between the domestic politics and the international system, whilst domestic politics is centralized and hierarchical; the international system is based on anarchy because there is no central government. The international system to Waltz is based on the model concerning the configuration of capabilities between states. He stressed the whole structure of the international system has to be studied in its own right as do units.
Under this unpredictable nature of the international system, with no clear intention of other units or states, the fear of unwanted consequences compels states to behave in ways that tends towards the creation of balances of power to protect interest in terms of economic or political influences in the international system. The balance of power may therefore be seen as a condition of structural equilibrium in the distribution of capabilities within the international system based on ordering principles and in this case anarchy. Neorealism normally plays down the theoretical importance of norms in the international system because they assume that norms themselves possess no power to affect state behaviour. Neorealist characterizes the structure of the international system as anarchy and as the distribution of military, economic, and technological capabilities among states
Neorealist also insists in the absolute centrality of the autonomous state in international politics. To them the texture of international politics or international relations remains constant, patterns recurs and events repeat themselves endlessly. The relations that prevail internationally seldom shift rapidly in type or quality and are marked by persistence which indicates the attempt by the European Union is not new to international politics.

The neorealist paradigm also acknowledges the importance of international regimes to foster cooperation among states in the international system, but suggests that the independent decision making in the international regimes that characterises anarchy and joint decision making reveal that, it is the self interest of autonomous states in a anarchic situations that leads them to create international regimes. Lipton furthered the neorealist perception of cooperation in the international system to be conditional but not permanent. Because of this cooperation is more likely in economic issue area than in those concerning military security.
Neo liberals on the other hand as Robert Keohane suggests the need for a revised theory that incorporate Waltz’s notion of structure but that takes seriously as explanatory factors, elements of the international system not included in Waltz’s limited conception of structure. Such theory should explain the significance of economic processes and of international political institution which can facilitate the flow of information thereby affecting the behavior of actors and their ability to cooperate with one another. Neoliberalism sought to move beyond the nation state by devising a new international institutions or regimes by interpreting the principles of sovereignty or by challenging the validity of the state as an actor model which realist’s rallies.
To Keohane, Neorealism does not provide a satisfactory theory of world politics and is particularly weak in accounting for changes, especially where the sources of change lie in the political economy or in the domestic structure of state. He maintain that neorealism could be modified progressively to attain closer correspondence with reality and that a system theory of international relations must account for state behavior by examining the constraints and incentive provided by the system.
Neoliberals believe in extensive cooperation in the international system between states and can be model or explained by the game theory of the prisoner’s dilemma. Within such a game, two participants could benefit from cooperation but fail to do so due to the patterns of incentives generated by the structure of strategic interest that exist between them. If the game is played interactively by the same players, cooperation between participants can rationally emerge if they value future rewards. Cooperation between states if institutionalized around norms of specific reciprocity in which specific partners exchange items of equivalent value in a strictly delimited sequence can sustain cooperation.
The neoliberal paradigm also counters neorealist perception of the international system on the grounds of cooperation. Even though they accept realist argument of anarchy impeding the achievement of international cooperation, states nevertheless can work together and can do so especially with the assistance of international institutions.
Neoliberals argue that neorealism is wrong to discount the possibilities for international cooperation and the capacity of international institution. Neoliberals claims about cooperation is based on its believe that states are atomistic actors that seek to maximize their individual absolute gain and are indifferent to the gains achieved by others.
To the neoliberals the effect of globalization especially after the end of the Cold War has altered the international system which neorealism based their assumptions and explanation on. To them the contemporary international system is based on complex pattern of interdependency which create extensive common interests among states especially advance industrial states .
With both assertions of contemporary international relations paradigms, it therefore becomes apparent as the paradigm that informed the President of Ghana on the decision on Ivory Coast in relation to ECOWAS. Is the President a Realist or Liberal? From above the president has chosen the Realist option and It’s up to the academic society to educate and inform citizenry about the reason why the President choose that path.



Eugene and Eric
eugeneomane@yahoo.com