American Diplomacy and Game Theory
Ever since the turn of the twentieth century, America has extended it reach beyond its borders through participating in economic , diplomatic and military affairs on a global scale. Over time, America has expanded its role to not only being a participant, but in many regards a policeman that works to arbitrate and diffuse issues not directly related to itself. Thus was the case with Myanmar in 1997 when the United States imposed economic sanctions on the southeast Asian nation in protest of the military junta that has ruled the nation for nearly half a century. In recent years as relationships have thawed, the Obama administration has taken steps to removing the sanctions in hopes of rebuilding relationships with the nation and encouraging the military to step down and allow the people to establish a democracy.
However, some, such as Phil Robertson, deputy director of the Asia division of Human Rights Watch, fear that this move may be preemptive and work against solving the human-rights issues that plague the nation. Robertson describes the move as “an incredibly premature and shortsighted lifting of sanctions against senior military officers, military-connected companies, and crony capitalists. It’s the turning point in Burma when U.S. corporate interests and realpolitik considerations about China triumphed over human rights and rule of law.” From, their perspective, the U.S. has made too lenient of a move, giving room for further corruption and strife from the vestiges of the former military junta and business tycoons that have held the country hostage in the past.
Ms. Aung San Suu Kyi, former political prisoner and now de facto leader of Myanmar, disagrees saying “We think that the time has now come to remove all the sanctions that hurt us economically, because our country is now in a position to open up to those who are interested in taking part in our economic enterprises.” As her fledgling government works in a precarious relationship with the military that still maintains great influence, Ms. Aung San Suu Kyi argues that political reform can be best achieved by enlisting the cooperation of past cronies to do good rather than fighting and punishing them directly.
Overall, this situation appears to be a classic example of a hawk-dove game. The two players: the U.S. and supporters of Ms. Aung San Suu Kyi and the Myanmar military and business tycoons that have dominated the history of the nation. Either of them can take an aggressive or passive stance and the expected payoffs can be visualized as such (greatly simplified of course):
Simplified Payoffs of Diplomacy in Myanmar
In this game the best mutual responses or Nash equilibria are (Aggressive, Passive) and (Passive, Aggressive), but without further information on how each side will randomize their decision, it isn’t clear which Nash equilibrium will emerge. However, in the current situation, with the U.S. already announcing the loosening of sanctions, it appears that the U.S. and its allies are putting themselves in a position to be taken advantage of by trying to go for a (Passive, Passive) result. Of course this is a greatly simplified view of the scenario and goes to show while some basic game theory is useful in predicting events, real world complications can require much deeper analysis to even begin to scratching the surface of trying to predict what will happen.
References:
- Obama’s Move to End Myanmar Sanctions Promises a Lift for Its Economy
- America promises to lift sanctions on Myanmar