Multi-party Prisoners Dilemma: Terrorism - Case Study Example

Introduction Terrorism is one of the most significant and critical contemporary global issues for the world’s international community. Theory of Prisoners’ Dilemmas Cooperation among states is a key element of international relations. States cooperate when such cooperation is mutually beneficial, or when failure to cooperate may hurt their individual interests. In such circumstances, the decision to cooperate or not to is straightforward. It does not require the consideration of many issues. However, there are also situations that are not so clear cut. A state may be doing well on its own in the absence of cooperation with other states or institutions. Cooperating with other states may improve the position of all players collectively, but if the individual state decides not to cooperate (defects), it may be better off alone. This is the description that Axelrod (n.d, p.32) gives to a prisoner’s dilemma game situation whereby a states that does not cooperate is likely to be better off. Nevertheless, if every state or player in the game chose to defect, the collective interests of the group would suffer. Hence, cooperation would be more a more rational approach which will benefit all of them (see Appendix1). Human beings are selfish creatures, and every decision they make is driven by the urge to protect individual interests (Anessa, 2010). If individual interests at the expense of collective interests is the main consideration in making such a decision, why then would a state choose to cooperate when defection would serve its interests better? According to Putman (1998), these are the complexities that adorn international relations, decision making and governance. War on Terrorism to Cooperate or Defect? Terrorism can be define as the “deliberate creation and exploitation of fear through violence or the threat of violence in the pursuit of political aims” (Hoffman, 2006, p.40). It is mainly perpetrated by non-state players such as disgruntled segments or groups of people. Many states in the world face terrorism threats from groups within as well as outside their territories who may be advocating for certain political concessions, religious or social changes among (). The al-Qaeda terrorist group is known to be the culprit behind the September 11, 2001 attack in the United States (US) which resulted in large amount of human tragedy (Veer & Munshi, 2004, p.48). Hence, following the September 11 attacks, President George W. Bush launched the “war on terrorism” campaign, which is an international military operation led by both the US and the United Kingdom (UK), together with the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) and non-NATO countries as advocators. This campaign was waged against the al-Qaeda with the intention to eradicate them by ending the use of Afghanistan as a base and removing the Taliban regime from power (Evangelista, 2011, p.3). Al-Qaeda is a cohesive and structured terrorist organization that espouses a violent Islamic extremist ideology, led and founded by Osama bin Laden (Burke, 2004, p.47).The philosophy of al-Qaeda has been its centralization of decisions and decentralisations of execution (Koschade, 2006, p.12). As a result of the war on terrorism, the core leadership of al-Qaeda has become geographically isolated mainly in the gray zone between Afghanistan and Pakistan (Feiser, 2004). This triggered the emergence of a decentralized leadership that allowed regional groups to initiate operations that conform to their ideological and dialectic beliefs.The 2002 Bali bombings in Indonesia, 2004 Madrid train bombings in Spain and 2005 July 7 London bombing are some examples that have been effectively executed by other radical Islamic groups through links with al-Qaeda. The targets, priorities, and justification are all directed through statements made by prominent figures such as Osama bin Laden, al Zawahiri and al-Zarqawi (Koschade, 2006, p.12). It can be seen from the above that, terrorist attacks directed at the US may not only be carried out on the American soil but also on other parts of the region. Hence, states which perceive themselves as unlikely to be targets of terrorism may be affected when another state’s interests in its territory are affected. These factors make terrorism a global problem, and not the concern of an individual state alone. Therefore, the strengthening of international governance and cooperation efforts are crucial when fighting terrorism. Furthermore Cortright (2005b, p.1) mention that the war on terrorism may be useful as a political metaphor, but eradicating Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups are generally the job for international law enforcement as well as cooperation among nations to challenge such an enemy. However, some states may not agree on the strategies to employ in the fight against international terrorism (Benvenisti, 2004). This is because, international relations and policies are generally entangled with each state’s internal and domestic politics (Alvarez, 2001). Therefore, other states may need to consider their individual domestic and foreign policies when deciding whether to cooperate with the US to fight the war on terrorism as it may contradict with their own policies. The conflict between the proposed international policies and a country’s domestic policies is one of the reasons why countries choose to either cooperate or defect. The decision on whether to cooperate with the US to fight the war on terrorism or to defect is influenced by many factors such as political, economic and diplomatic factors as well as domestic and international pressure. Personal interests and characteristics of the policy makers may also take credit for the choice that a state makes. Furthermore, national interests such as the need to protect the state’s sovereignty also influence decision making on the course of action to take in matters of international interest. Before deciding whether to cooperate or not to, a state should consider whether it is the collective gains of cooperation or advantages of defection that serve its interests best. A state’s interests may be injured in the short term, but benefit in the long term. The consequences of the decision on the state’s future are also considered when making that crucial decision. The determinants of a state’s actions International law and a host of international treaties limit or prohibit the use of force by states against other states or non-state entities. The United Nation (UN) charter is one good example. Article 2 Section 4 in Chapter 1 of the UN Charter restricted the actions of states especially the use of force in international relations stating that, “all members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations” (United Nations, 2012). Furthermore, many security measures of members states concerning the use of force are maintained by the Security Council which is covered in Chapter 7 of the UN Charter on “action with respect to threats to the peace, breaches of the peace and acts of aggression” (United Nations, 2012). Hence, the determinants of a state’s actions on the war on terrorism will somehow be influence in accordance with the UN Charter. In deciding on collective actions, leaders of states put many factors into consideration before deciding whether to cooperate with others or defect. Political leaders are influenced by domestic politics and political institutions in making collective decisions (McGillivray & Smith, 2005). A political leader will pursue policies that are likely to ensure his or her re-election to office (Daudet, 1997). The desire of political leaders to keep their offices and survive in office is often a significant influence on their decisions. These considerations have dire ramifications on the war on terrorism. If agreeing with other states on for instance, the use of force to fight against terrorism faces strong opposition back home, a state is likely to defect. This is because the leaders making that decision do not want to prejudice their political positions. The state on the other hand, has a duty to ensure the safety of its citizens. The electorate is likely to support a government that is perceived to be serious about public safety. For this reason, politicians who want to ensure their political survival are likely to support collective actions to fight terrorism. Defection may be construed to mean that the safety of its citizens is not significant to the state. For example, a country that faces terror threats but does not have sufficient resources to fight against the terrorist group on its own is likely to support a collective resolution to fight terrorism. Audience costs are a significant influence on the decisions of countries to cooperate with other states or defect in the war on terrorism (Keet, 2003). The international relations policies that a politician supports may cost him or her politically thorough injuries to his or her reputation. Gains may be registered internationally, but injuries at home matter to politicians who are keen on protecting their political positions back home (Keet, 2003). Audience costs are easily measured in democratic nations. This is through political actions such as re-election of the politician. A classic example of audience cost is that of Collin Powell. During the 2002/3 Iraq crisis, the US secretary of state’s credibility suffered after he changed positions and supported the US invasion of Iraq (Keet, 2003). Analysis of state’s action United Kingdom The UK is a country that campaign for the respect for human rights and rule of law. However, it strongly supported the US in the war on terrorism despite the strong opposition from the English public (Gale, 2006, p.4). Hence, the deciding factor of the UK to back US in fighting the war on terrorism is because the UK fear that the terrorist group will shift their focus not only on the US but on the whole democratic world as their target (BBC News, 2001). Furthermore, NATO member parties agreed on Article 5 of the NATO treaty that if a NATO ally is the victim of an armed attack, each and every other member of the Alliance will consider this act of violence as an armed attack against all members and will take the actions it deems necessary to assist the ally attacked (NATO, 2008). In this case, the use of force was permitted which significantly influenced the UK’s decision to support the US. Moreover, majority of the NATO members together with non-NATO member countries are advocating the US in the war on terrorism. Hence, it would be wise for the UK government to also be involved in advocating the US. China The relations between China and the US had been problematic before the 9/11 event (Scobell, 2005). The 9/11 event has seen to create an opportunity for China to demonstrate its credentials as a responsible rising power as well as mending the tattered relationship with the US (Yuan, 2001). Hence, the decision to support the US in the fight against terrorism were seen to be positive and beneficial for the Chinese government. Moreover, the Chinese government were also apprehensive of terrorism and Islamic extremism even in its own territory (Roy, 2002, p.511). And this can be seen in the Xinjiang, the northwestern Chinese province which had population of 16 million with 38 percent of Han Chinese and about half Muslim Uyghurs, with the latter having deep and widespread resentment over the former (Roy, 2002, p.516). In the 1940s, there were an attempt by the Muslim separatist movements to gain independence for the region under the name of “East Turkestan” through violent demonstrations, bombings and assassinations, not only in the region alone but also in major cities such as Beijing and Wuhan (Roy, 2002, p.517). According to Roy (2002, p.517), China support for the war on terrorism will brings two potential benefits to its own anti-terrorism campaign and that are the Western acquiescence to the suppression of ethnic nationalism and separatism and the access to American anti-terrorism expertise and technology. Allegations by the Chinese government that thousands of Xinjiang separatists, have been receiving terrorist training in Afghanistan gain credibility from reports that, the Eastern Turkestan Islamic Party of Allah operates from Afghanistan. Other parties are also linked to guerilla armies that have been continually waging attacks on the Chinese government. They are suspected to have carried out attacks on the Chinese embassy in Ankara and Istanbul in 1997 (Chung, 2002). The Chinese separatist organizations are treated and termed as terrorists by the Chinese government. These groups have support from Uighur émigré communities across the globe. These supporters are well organized and have bases in Washington-DC and Turkey (Chung, 2002). The size of this group is not what causes Beijing to worry. It is substantially small and does not pose a serious threat to China’s control over the region. The danger lies in their potential to disrupt peace in China. This could lead to an image of instability and disrupt the flow of investments into the country. It is therefore, important for China to cooperate with the US and other Western powers like the UK in efforts to combat terrorism. In the process, it obtains assistance to fight terror groups in its territory and is empowered to suppress the separatist organizations that it considers terrorist organizations. Chinese cooperation efforts with the US on the war on terror intensified after 9/11, and after realizing that terrorism is a global problem. Yoram (2007) discusses the reasons why China is so keen to cooperate with international powers against terror. Some of those reasons are discussed above. In addition to these, China hopes its cooperation efforts will intercept or restrict the international assistance that separatist groups in its territory receive from international supporters. It also seeks to acquire advanced and sophisticated technology from experienced nations in the war on terror. Other broad objectives are to improve its international image and solidify its regional influence (Yoram, 2007). India India has not suffered major Jihadist attacks by the Al-Qaida, either before or after 9/11. However, it has been fighting its own private war on terror. The country has suffered a series of terror attacks over the years, forcing it into a war against terror. This war existed well before 9/11 and continued thereafter. Jihadist terrorists from Pakistan have been targeting India, engaging it in a war against terror. Roychowdhury (2011) claims that the Pakistan army and its inter-services intelligence coordinate and sponsors these attacks. Pakistan had been a trusted ally of the US since the cold war, and India’s protests were easily ignored. However, 9/11 changed everything, and the US realized it needs more allies in the fight against terror. The cooperation between the US and India is based on common goals shared by the two countries. Both the US and India have significant interests in a stable Afghanistan free from the Taliban. India has channeled millions of dollars into Afghanistan as aid, and in efforts to ensure that Taliban rule does not return. The cooperation of the two nations is mutually beneficial. The question of Pakistan could potentially strain their relationship. However, the US insists that its relationship with Pakistan is based on the understanding that the US will not tolerate support for terrorists (Bajoria, 2011). India has been fighting its war on terror without foreign assistance. An Indo-US pact would, however, register improved results in the war on terror, with the sharing of technology and combined resources. In addition to the above, having the US as an ally will hopefully, tone down the tension between India and Pakistan. The US has on several occasions, acted as an arbiter between Pakistan and India, and assisted in fostering peace talks between the two countries. In cooperating with the US, India hopes to acquire a valuable ally in the fight against terror attacks from Pakistan. Pakistan Pakistan has had a history of supporting terrorist activities. It was the main source of military and diplomatic support for the Taliban government in Afghanistan. It also sponsored terrorist activities against neighboring India. However, after 9/11 a US-Pakistan alliance was formed. This was not the first close relationship between the two states, as they had been close allies during the cold war. This closeness declined after the cold war, as they no longer shared strategic interests. After supporting anti-America Islamic radicals for so long, one wonders what caused Pakistan’s u-turn towards an alliance with the US against the same forces it supported (Hadar, 2002). Pakistan’s move was strategic. Its policy did not undergo a structural transformation. Pakistan realized that the Taliban regime was about to fall, and she had to mitigate the losses she would have suffered as a result. Islamabad knew that America’s wrath would be directed at her if she rejected cooperation efforts. Such an occurrence would jeopardize her strategic interests in the region. Pakistan’s U-turn in supporting the US-led war on terrorism was provoked by the need to protect economic and political interests in South Asia (Hadar, 2002). Conclusion Terrorist activities across the globe are a matter of international concern. This is especially the case when terrorists acquire nuclear technology that has the capacity to cause massive destruction in the world. In tackling the issue of international terrorism, states have had to come together and take collective action. However, they have not always agreed on how to act against terrorists. States and other institutions do not agree on the use of force in the war against terrorism. This is because of the legal and constitutional implications of their actions, in light of international law and treaties’ provisions. However, these are not the only issues that arise. Many factors guide a state in deciding whether to cooperate with others, defect or choose to act alone. The multiparty prisoner’s dilemma game theory has been applied by many states in their decisions on the international war on terror. This has been illustrated in the actions of countries such as the US, UK, India, China and France in international relations relating to the war on terrorism. It has been shown that most countries decide to cooperate or defect, after considering which move would be most beneficial to their interests. For example, the essay clearly shows that India cooperates with the US so as to gain an advantage in its rivalry with Pakistan. China on the other hand, hopes to establish itself as a regional power, and possibly dislodge the US from its leadership position. References Bajoria, J 2011, ‘Terrorism Concerns on US-India Agenda’, Council on Foreign Relations, Viewed 1 May 2012, < http://www.cfr.org/india/terrorism-concerns-us-india-agenda/p25511> Chung, C 2002, ‘China's 'War on Terror': September 11 and Uighur Separatism’, Council on Foreign Relations, Viewed 1 May 2012, http://www.cfr.org/china/chinas-war-terror-september-11-uighur-separatism/p4765 Hadar, L 2002, ‘Pakistan in America's War against Terrorism: Strategic Ally or Unreliable Client?’, CATO Institute, Viewed 2 May 2012, Roychowdhury, S 2011, India’s War on Terror Remains a Postscript, Viewed 1 May 2012, < http://dc.asianage.com/columnists/india-s-war-terror-remains-postscript-183> Schmitt, G & Gerecht, R.M 2007, ‘France: Europe’s Counterterrorist Powerhouse’. American Enterprise Institute, Viewed 1 May 2012, < http://www.aei.org/article/foreign-and-defense-policy/regional/europe/france-europes-counterterrorist-powerhouse/> Yoram, E 2007, ‘China’s Anti-Terrorism Policy’, Strategic Assessment, Vol. 10 no. 3, Viewed 1 May 2012, Read More

Bush launched the “war on terrorism” campaign, which is an international military operation led by both the US and the United Kingdom (UK), together with the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) and non-NATO countries as advocators. This campaign was waged against the al-Qaeda with the intention to eradicate them by ending the use of Afghanistan as a base and removing the Taliban regime from power (Evangelista, 2011, p.3). Al-Qaeda is a cohesive and structured terrorist organization that espouses a violent Islamic extremist ideology, led and founded by Osama bin Laden (Burke, 2004, p.47).The philosophy of al-Qaeda has been its centralization of decisions and decentralisations of execution (Koschade, 2006, p.12). As a result of the war on terrorism, the core leadership of al-Qaeda has become geographically isolated mainly in the gray zone between Afghanistan and Pakistan (Feiser, 2004).

This triggered the emergence of a decentralized leadership that allowed regional groups to initiate operations that conform to their ideological and dialectic beliefs.The 2002 Bali bombings in Indonesia, 2004 Madrid train bombings in Spain and 2005 July 7 London bombing are some examples that have been effectively executed by other radical Islamic groups through links with al-Qaeda. The targets, priorities, and justification are all directed through statements made by prominent figures such as Osama bin Laden, al Zawahiri and al-Zarqawi (Koschade, 2006, p.12). It can be seen from the above that, terrorist attacks directed at the US may not only be carried out on the American soil but also on other parts of the region.

Hence, states which perceive themselves as unlikely to be targets of terrorism may be affected when another state’s interests in its territory are affected. These factors make terrorism a global problem, and not the concern of an individual state alone. Therefore, the strengthening of international governance and cooperation efforts are crucial when fighting terrorism. Furthermore Cortright (2005b, p.1) mention that the war on terrorism may be useful as a political metaphor, but eradicating Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups are generally the job for international law enforcement as well as cooperation among nations to challenge such an enemy.

However, some states may not agree on the strategies to employ in the fight against international terrorism (Benvenisti, 2004). This is because, international relations and policies are generally entangled with each state’s internal and domestic politics (Alvarez, 2001). Therefore, other states may need to consider their individual domestic and foreign policies when deciding whether to cooperate with the US to fight the war on terrorism as it may contradict with their own policies. The conflict between the proposed international policies and a country’s domestic policies is one of the reasons why countries choose to either cooperate or defect.

The decision on whether to cooperate with the US to fight the war on terrorism or to defect is influenced by many factors such as political, economic and diplomatic factors as well as domestic and international pressure. Personal interests and characteristics of the policy makers may also take credit for the choice that a state makes. Furthermore, national interests such as the need to protect the state’s sovereignty also influence decision making on the course of action to take in matters of international interest.

Before deciding whether to cooperate or not to, a state should consider whether it is the collective gains of cooperation or advantages of defection that serve its interests best. A state’s interests may be injured in the short term, but benefit in the long term. The consequences of the decision on the state’s future are also considered when making that crucial decision. The determinants of a state’s actions International law and a host of international treaties limit or prohibit the use of force by states against other states or non-state entities.

Read More