Great Power Politics Among Asante and Its Neighbours in the 18Th and 19Th Centuries: an Offensive Realist Explanation
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
University of Calgary PRISM: University of Calgary's Digital Repository Graduate Studies The Vault: Electronic Theses and Dissertations 2017 Great Power Politics Among Asante and its Neighbours in the 18th and 19th Centuries: An Offensive Realist Explanation Yankey-Wayne, Valerie Anne Yankey-Wayne, V. A. (2017). Great Power Politics Among Asante and its Neighbours in the 18th and 19th Centuries: An Offensive Realist Explanation (Unpublished doctoral thesis). University of Calgary, Calgary, AB. doi:10.11575/PRISM/26320 http://hdl.handle.net/11023/3810 doctoral thesis University of Calgary graduate students retain copyright ownership and moral rights for their thesis. You may use this material in any way that is permitted by the Copyright Act or through licensing that has been assigned to the document. For uses that are not allowable under copyright legislation or licensing, you are required to seek permission. Downloaded from PRISM: https://prism.ucalgary.ca UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY Great Power Politics Among Asante and its Neighbours in the 18th and 19th Centuries: An Offensive Realist Explanation by Valerie Anne Yankey-Wayne A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY GRADUATE PROGRAM IN MILITARY AND STRATEGIC STUDIES CALGARY, ALBERTA APRIL, 2017 © Valerie Anne Yankey-Wayne 2017 Abstract Pre-colonial African history has been excluded from realists’ analysis of great power politics because they consider Africa to have had no significant history of influence before the World Wars. This thesis seeks to determine whether a pre-colonial African states system was equivalent to the European model, and whether the same factors influenced security competition and the motivation to maximize military power. The thesis answers the above assertion by testing Mearsheimer’s offensive realism’s central proposition—‘maximizing military power with the ultimate aim of becoming a hegemon is the logical solution in an anarchic environment’—against the international relations of Asante and its neighbors in the 18th and 19th centuries. Although both Africanists and realists may reject the application of offensive realism to pre-colonial African history, there is evidence to suggest that this maybe a viable argument. The Asante case, just like Mearsheimer’s great power politics of Europe, was characterized by the lack of higher authority, which generated a climate of uncertainty that manifested itself through maximization of military power, formation of alliances and wars. The African polities’ drive to maximize their military power arguably made the concept of ‘balance of power’ unworkable, in the sense that almost all the polities in the system were prepared to use military power to achieve their objectives, and this made wars more frequent. In this case, whereas Asante used military aggression to aspire for hegemony, its neighbors rather used military aggression to defend their status quo, that is, their control of the trade routes. ii Mearsheimer’s theory was useful in explaining how structural factors such as anarchy and the distribution of military power strongly shaped the behavior of the polities of the Asante case, but it has little to say about why Asante, a revisionist state was revisionist. Furthermore, although Mearsheimer introduces the argument that nationalism, a sub-unit factor can directly influence structural factors, it may benefit realism to build on Mearsheimer’s theory by looking into non-Western ways of thinking, which incorporates non-structural factors like collective identity (glorification of the nation) and regime (personal) power into their understanding of great power politics and revisionism. iii Acknowledgements Not all those who wander are lost; The old that is strong does not wither, Deep roots are not reached by the frost. From the ashes a fire shall be woken, A light from the shadows shall spring; Renewed shall be blade that was broken. J. R. R. Tolkien I wandered so far afield but still managed to complete the task with the support of my Supervisory Committee: Dr. Robert Neil Huebert, Dr. John Robert Ferris, Dr. Maureen Sharon Hiebert, and Dr. James Francis Keeley. I owe all four of them a debt that I cannot repay, in part for their sound advice but mostly for taking a chance on me. I am particularly indebted to my thesis supervisor, Dr. Huebert for the confidence he inspired in me, and his unwavering support and encouragement throughout my PhD journey. I am also grateful for all the support extended from the office of the Dean of Graduate Studies, particularly Dr. Lisa Young, Dean and Vice-provost (graduate studies) and Dr. Lisa Hughes, Associate Dean (Policy) and Benedicta Antepim, Graduate Program Officer. Special thanks are also due to Donna Keene-Ochosky, Graduate Program Administrator and Dr. Frank Towers, Graduate Program Director of the Centre for Military, Security and Strategic Studies. I am honored to have been a part of the community of the Centre iv for Military, Security and Strategic Studies, University of Calgary, a place where disciplinary boundaries dissolve and ‘difficult and controversial’ questions are not just encouraged but expected. Scholarship can be a solitary endeavor, but my husband and children were a constant source of support over the years and kept me reasonably sane. Finally, I would also like to acknowledge professional editor, Dr. Stuart Edgar for providing copyediting and proofreading services, according to the guidelines laid out by the Faculty of Graduate Studies for editing research thesis. v Dedication This doctoral dissertation is dedicated to my parents: John Edmund Kweku Yankey and Juliana Kwakyewa Yankey (nee Martinson) for their love, endless support and encouragement. vi Table of Contents Abstract ....................................................................................................................... ii Acknowledgements .................................................................................................. iv Dedication .................................................................................................................. vi List of Figures and Illustrations ............................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.x List of Boxes ............................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.x Chapter 1: Rationale for the Study ......................................................................... 1 1.1. Introduction .......................................................................................................... 1 1.2. Why realism (including IR theory) is not applied to the Understanding of African International Relations ................................................................................... 6 1.3. Why the Africanist Academy should not miss out on the Major Intellectual Debate on Great Power Politics ............................................................................... 12 1.4. Selection of Case Study: Why the Asante and its Neighbours in the 18th and 19th Centuries ? ........................................................................................................ 15 1.5. Research Question ............................................................................................ 22 1.6. Why Offensive Realism ? .................................................................................. 23 1.7. Conclusion ......................................................................................................... 30 Chapter 2: Methodology......................................................................................... 31 2.1. Introduction ........................................................................................................ 31 2.2. Method ............................................................................................................... 32 2.3. Establishing the Context and Unit of Analysis ................................................. 34 2.3.1. Establishing the Context ................................................................................. 35 2.3.2. Establishing the Unit of Analysis (principal actors of the system) ................ 40 2.3.2.1 Defining the Status of the European Entities ................................................ 42 2.4. Sources ............................................................................................................... 44 2.5. Conclusion and Plan of Study ............................................................................ 48 Chapter 3: Presenting Mearsheimer's Central Ideas as Variables .................... 50 3.1. Introduction ........................................................................................................ 50 3.2. Defining the Variables ....................................................................................... 51 3.3. The Distinctive Features of Mearsheimer’s Anarchic System that Generate Aggressive Behavior ................................................................................................ 55 3.4. Maximization of Military Power, with the Ultimate Aim of Becoming a Hegemon ................................................................................................................... 59 3.5. Polarity of the System (the way power is distributed in the system) and Balancing .................................................................................................................