From State And State Power To Man And Social - National ...

the interest of global capital, in general, and the American corporate world in particular. As TheEconomist [London, July 13, 2002:24] observed,…too often, this [Bush] administration’s policy seems to be expressly tailoredfor (and heavily influenced by) business lobbies…too many of the corporatetypes in the Bush team equate good economic policy with what is good for businessThis is hardly surprising: Mr. Bush’s presidential campaign was largely financedfrom Corporate wallets and his cabinet is stuffed with corporate chief executives.Under Bush, the business world in the United States found allies in the defence industry whichwas itching to try out new weapons and innovative ways of waging wars. By 2002, moderntechnology, in the form of e-mail and the internet had begun to play a big part in the planning ofarmed attacks. The Islamic revolutionary movement, al-Qaeda, was said to have used the newtechnology in the 9/11 attack on the U.S.A. On the part of the U.S. government, some newmilitary equipment had been tried out in Afghanistan in 2001. It involved the use of “unmannedaircraft and precision-guided munitions (PGMS)”. These included “low-tech bombs with satellitenavigation system bolted on to guide them to their targets”. It was expected that the impendingwar in Iraq, then, was likely to be dominated not only by UAVs (unmanned air vehicles), butalso by high altitude long endurance (HALE) aircraft, with satellite antenna, which operatesautonomously. It would also involve using information technology to link American and alliedforces so that they could fight jointly. The American government and defence industry lobbiescould hardly wait to try out the new ideas, and then later market them in other countries. Theapparent mutuality of interest in war as a commercial enterprise, cemented the convergence ofinterests between the corporate world and the state of America and eventuated in the invasion ofIraq.CONCLUDING REMARKS: MY MAJOR CONSTRIBUTIONSTO THE STUDY OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONSWhat I consider as my most critical contribution to the study of international relations is myattempt to humanize the contents of the discipline. When I look at the world, I do not see, as thedominant scenery, boundaries and military tanks, armoured vehicles, presidents, defenceministers and armies. Rather what I see very clearly are human beings. I am acutely consciousof toiling, suffering, but gregarious and happy humanity existing, moving and relaxing in theirsimple ways. I perceive also relatively idle, cliquish, but opulent and anxiety-ridden parasitesoperating in their devious ways. It is this constructivist prism that informs my reinterpretation ofthe nature of international relations, and my re-conceptualization of the configuration of forces inthe international system. Mine is, I dare say, a fresh, bold and humanistic perspective on thediscipline of international relations. It represents an abandonment of the elite stand point, and anembrace of a mass line, in looking at the world. The proponent of the elitist viewpoint studies thepowerful, and therefore researches on how power is seized and consolidated; the protagonist ofthe mass line empathizes with the victims of power and studies how they can be liberated fromexploitation and oppression- above all, how they can be freed from the tyranny of poverty.My first published, purely conceptual work, reflecting this humanistic perspective, appeared inthe Nigerian Journal of International Affairs in 1993. Titled “Conceptualizing theConfiguration of Forces in the Emerging International System: Contending Perspectives”,39