The Effect of Terrorism on International Relations: The Case of Kenya’s Bilateral Relations with Somalia

Chapter One: Introduction

Before the 9/11 terrorist attacks in the US by the Al-Qaeda terrorist group, the notion of terrorism was not as widespread as it is today. Consequently, it was only associated with the security events of a nation. Nevertheless, the onset of the attacks in the US changed the perception of terrorism from merely a security-related issue to one that affects all aspects of life, including international relations. Essentially, the incident created the concept of global terrorism, a factor that denotes the transnational nature of both the impact of terrorism and its associated politics. In this paper, an evaluation of how terrorism affects international relations will occur. The assessment will be based on the effect terrorism has on the bilateral relations between Kenya and Somalia — two neighboring states in Eastern Africa. In the discussion, the underlying thesis is that terrorism illustrates the concept of realism in international relations by creating opportunities for the more influential states to control the weaker ones.

Background

            Terrorism can be loosely defined as the use of violence and intimidation to achieve political aims. Essentially, it refers to an event whose deliberate intention is to disturb both domestic and international peace. Bruneau (2016) adds that a group ideology is often the motivation behind the terrorist acts. Presently, the common conception of terrorism is as it relates to the Jihadi ideology — the belief that it is right to fight to expand the reach of the Islamic religion and allegiance to Sharia law. While Islamism is not the only motivating factor for terrorism, it is by far the most believed because of the intensity of terrorist acts undertaken by Islamist militants (Bird et al., 2008). These incidents include the 1998 US embassy bombings in Nairobi and Dar Salaam, the 2001 attacks in the US, and the 2005 bombings in London — all were perpetrated in the name of Islam.

Each of the incidents had significant implications for both bilateral and multilateral relations. For instance, following the 9/11 attacks, the US responded by invading Afghanistan and later Iraq. Both wars had consequences on the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) — an intergovernmental military organization that consists of North American and European states. Initially, the onset of the wars (which were a response to terrorist attacks) threatened to break the alliance; however, the members later resolved to assist the US in its counterterrorism efforts. During this confrontation, the US sought to instill control over Afghanistan and Iraq by changing their governance structures to suit the needs of the former. This attempt illustrates that the aftermath of terrorism is the dominant state seeking to assert control of the weaker nation, a scenario that depicts realism.

Similarly, the bilateral relations between Kenya and Somalia have been shaped by the realism perspective. The Al-Shabab militant group serves as the primary nexus in the diplomatic relations between the two countries. Since its founding in 2004, the militant organization —which is domiciled in Somalia —has undertaken numerous attacks both in Kenya and Somalia. For instance, in Kenya, the group claimed responsibility for the 2013 Westgate shopping mall attacks that left 68 people dead. It was also responsible for the Garissa University College attack that led to the deaths of 148 people. Recently, the group has also attacked Camp Simba, a US military installation in the Manda Bay area of Lamu in Kenya.

The persistent attacks on Kenya prompted the country to send its military into Somalia. The stated intention by the Kenyan government was to defeat the Al-Shabab militants while creating a buffer zone along the two nations’ borders. However, despite the terrorist group being a menace even to Somalia, the latter state contends that the actions by Kenya infringe on its sovereignty and also serve as a destabilizing force in the region (Kelley, 2020). On its part, Kenya has undertaken moves to minimize Somalia’s influence in the region or prevent its rise. These actions include Kenya’s continued support for Sheikh Ahmed Madobe, Jubaland’s de facto leader; yet, he is at loggerheads with the federal government of Somalia — Jubaland is an autonomous region that lies in the Southern part of Somalia (Kagas, 2020). The entirety of the border that Kenya shares with Somalia lies in this area. Therefore, the region, including its politics, security, and socioeconomic welfare, serves as a major flashpoint in the Kenya-Somalia relations.

Accordingly, in this paper, an assessment of how the terrorist acts of the Al-Shabab affect the bilateral relations between Kenya and Somalia will occur. The theoretical framework employed in the research will entail the realist perspective of international relations. According to Zahra (2011), realism is a school of thought in international relations that contends that global politics is in a constant state of conflict. Primarily, the global system is defined by anarchy. Zahra (2011) raises two points of view that are vital for this research study. First, she asserts that under realism, the state remains a critical actor despite the rise of non-state actors. In this paper, the non-state actors include the notion of global terrorism, and in particular, the Al-Shabab in Somalia. Secondly, she holds that despite the emergence of the non-state actors (and the subsequence complex relations among states), each state still fights for self-preservation and the augmentation of its own political power. Therefore, in this proposal, the foundational hypothesis is that a country where terrorists are domiciled creates the necessary conditions for other states to enhance their power relative to the former, especially in the pretext of the war against terror.

Justification for the Research

            Terrorism has become an accepted reality in most parts of the globe. Given that it affects the bilateral relations between nations, it is critical to developing a body of scholarship on the issue. Consequently, such scholarship would serve as a basis for improving the bilateral ties between warring nations, in this case, Kenya and Somalia. Additionally, the study seeks to situate the place of terrorism in the politics of international relations. For instance, if stable states can gain leverage over weaker states that inhabit terrorists, then it is plausible that the former may sponsor terrorist groups to maintain their upper hand in the balance of power. Accordingly, this study is also vital because it offers an extensive overview of the complex strategic decisions and power plays that occur in international diplomacy. Therefore, it will also aid students and researchers in the subject to improve their critical thinking and analysis skills.

Research Questions and Objectives

1. How does terrorism affect the bilateral relations between states?
2. Do stable states use terrorism as a tool to wield control over unstable states?

• Is terrorism beneficial for the more powerful state in a bilateral relationship?

This study aims to evaluate the true impact of terrorism on international diplomacy, especially bilateral relations. The effect of terrorism on foreign affairs has mainly been based on the perception that it leads to a zero-sum game for bilateral or multilateral partners. Nevertheless, an extensive evaluation of the issue reveals that the ensuing relations are not necessarily zero-sum. Instead, the more stable state in the relationship benefits more, especially in expanding its influence in line with the realist perspective of international relations. Consequently, this study purposes to evaluate this issue more objectively. Its outcomes have significant implications on how international relations practitioners perceive terrorism and its effect on diplomacy and a nation-state’s strategic decision-making.

Chapter Two: Literature Review

The issue of terrorism has grown exponentially over the years. Further, the costs associated with it in terms of death, injury, and socioeconomic impact means that it affects all facets of society. Consequently, it has become a subject of interest for many scholars, not just those interested in international relations but other subjects. In this section, an evaluation of the research studies that have already been undertaken regarding this paper’s topic will occur. The assessment aims to gauge the competing sources of evidence regarding the issue.

The view that stronger states take advantage of the chaos created by terrorism to dominate weaker states forms the basis of this paper. Such a view also implies that more vulnerable states also serve as havens for terrorist groups. Piazza (2008) undertook a study to assess the link between fragile states (weak states) and transnational terrorism. The underlying argument in the study is that such nations (whether they sponsor the terror groups or not) pose a danger to the international order. Thus, it is crucial to evaluate the reasons why failed or failing states serve as hubs for terrorism. Piazza (2008) argues that one such reason lies in the traditional definition of a nation-state. In its inherent sense, the ability to maintain a state arises because of its ability to apply legitimate coercive power and violence to instill order within its jurisdiction. However, in weak nations, the government faces challenges that make it challenging to employ legitimate force on its people, a factor referred to as coercive incapacity. For the case of Somalia, the difficulty arose because of the civil war in the country.

Secondly, Piazza (2008) contends that weakness arises because of the state’s inability to offer political goods to its citizenry. The social contract between a state and its people is such that the latter becomes willing to surrender some of their freedoms to the government in exchange for some benefits. The author holds that in the absence of such an understanding, an administrative incapacity exists. The inadequacy creates a large pool of possible recruits for terrorist groups. Thirdly, Piazza (2008) is of the view that such states still maintain an outward perception of sovereignty. Thus, this situation makes it difficult for external actors, including states, to invade and demolish the terrorist networks. Such a circumstance implies that such countries become havens for terrorism.

The evaluation by Piazza (2008) provides crucial insights into the factors that weaken a state; hence, making it conducive for terrorist activity, as is the case with Somalia. The study offers valuable clues to this study. First, it showcases that powerful nations will be inclined to seek control over the weaker state because of opportunism. The opportunism arises because both coercive and administrative incapacity makes such countries vulnerable targets for stable nations to flex their influence. This occurrence is reflective of international relations from a realist perspective. Secondly, it shows that the notion of transnationality is one of the necessary conditions for terrorism to gain a prominent place among non-state actors that influence international diplomacy.

Nevertheless, the study done by Piazza (2008) can be termed as being reactive because it does not indicate the fundamental reasons as to why a state becomes weak in the first place; hence, making it a suitable breeding ground for terrorism. In the absence of such an evaluation, then it is difficult to justify the theme of this paper. However, research undertaken by Reese and Lewis (2009) attempts to answer this query by offering an overview of how strong states influence the weak states engulfed with terror groups.

The study by Reese and Lewis (2009) examined the framing of the war in Afghanistan following the 9/11 attacks. The authors argue that the government framed the war as an opportunity to reclaim their government and leadership position in the globe. On its part, the media passed on a similar message to the masses, a factor that served as a “powerful organizing principle” (p. 777). As an illustration of the ability of framing in influencing the psyche of the population, Reese and Lewis (2009) hold that the US leveraged on the emotions raised by the media as an impetus to invade Iraq in 2003. An evaluation of the assertions by the two scholars indicates that terrorism merely serves as a pretext for a stronger state to invade or exert influence on a weaker nation.

Still, the study by Reese and Lewis (2009) does not address how failed states become weak in the first place, as well as the role of more influential states in the process. To have an understanding of this issue, it is crucial to assess from an international development perspective. Solarz (2012) examines this notion using the north-south global divide. The author argues that the global north has contributed indirectly to the administrative incapacity of the global south. The contribution has been in the form of structural factors like debt traps and illegal exploitation of the latter’s resources. Consequently, governments in the global south become unable to offer political goods, like adequate healthcare and education, to their constituents; hence, making them vulnerable — failing or failed states. This outcome makes them a suitable breeding ground for terrorism because of the lack of administrative and coercive capacity — an assertion also shared by Piazza (2008). Thus, such a circumstance makes it possible for powerful states to assert control over the vulnerable states, a situation that is indicative of realism.

Additionally, the assertion by Solarz (2012) resonates with the current developmental overview of states and terrorism. For instance, all fragile states, such as Somalia, Yemen, and South Sudan, are poor economically. Therefore, the state of development — which is influenced by stable states — is a vital variable in determining the susceptibility of a nation to terrorism. Essentially, the more developed a country, the less vulnerable it is to both the impact of terror and the likelihood of it being a haven for terrorism. This view implies that stable states may derive some benefits from the instability of another nation-state — the underlying notion behind realism in international relations. Additionally, it also means that it may also be in the interest of powerful states for terrorism to thrive in frail countries regardless of the cost of terror-related activities to international peace.

So far, the analysis of literature has shown that powerful states contribute indirectly to the growth of weak states as havens for terrorists. Nonetheless, studies also indicate that such nations also have a direct contribution. In a study on terrorism, realism, and the state, Zahra (2011) offers an illustration of situations where a powerful state has acted as a direct sponsor of terrorism in a weakened state to gain control over the latter. These examples include the British government’s assistance to Spanish militia fighting the oust the Spanish government during that country’s civil war. Another example is the support that the American state provided to the Mujahideen in Afghanistan and Iran’s covert and overt support to Hamas in Palestine. Consequently, based on the perspectives of Zahra (2011) and Solarz (2012), despite the destructive effects of terrorism, it serves as a useful tool within which stronger states gain control of fragile nations.

From the literature review, the main takeaway is that despite terrorism harming international peace, it does not necessarily lead to a zero-sum in terms of international diplomacy. Some states gain more legitimacy and influence, regardless of terrorism. However, the gap in knowledge concerns how such an occurrence is reflected in the bilateral relations between Kenya and Somalia, considering the activities of the Al-Shabab terrorist group, which is domiciled in the latter. Therefore, this research will focus on the impact of terrorism on the bilateral relations between Kenya and Somalia. In doing so, the researcher will seek to gauge the correctness of this study’s guiding thesis that terrorism illustrates the concept of realism in international relations by creating opportunities for the stronger states to control the weaker ones.

Chapter Three: Methodology

Research Philosophy

A research philosophy refers to a belief in how the organization of data for a research study should occur in terms of the collection, analysis, and implementation processes. Numerous philosophies exist. Nonetheless, it is vital to tailor each one of them depending on contextual factors such as the research methodology employed, the research question, and the ideological beliefs of the researcher. In this paper, the applicable epistemology is positivism. Positivism relates to the view that it is possible to explain all reality from an objective perspective. Substantially, the researcher does not interfere with the phenomena. Instead, he acts as a neutral observer to an occurrence. The advantage of this approach is that its validity and reliability is significantly high because of the researcher’s non-interference. Thus, outcomes of a research remain constant even in repeated observations. Therefore, it is a practical approach, even in social sciences because it ensures objectivity and generalizability of research.

Research Methods

In this paper, the applicable study design is qualitative research. The primary advantage of such a design in comparison to quantitative approaches is that it provides the researcher with an opportunity to evaluate an issue in detail. This outcome is possible because counts and ranks do not limit the observations and analysis made, as would be the case if a quantitative methodology was in use. Thus, it is appropriate for this study, especially considering that it is exploratory. Secondly, because of its openness in the evaluation process, qualitative methods tend to be useful since they avoid pre-judgments. Such judgments are common in quantitative research because the hypothesis statement guides the entire assessment process. In essence, the statements represent a biased opinion of a subject based on the beliefs of the researcher.

Data Collection and Analysis

The applicable data collection methods are interviews and a focus group. The interview will involve semi-structured questions. The sample population will entail experts and practitioners in the field of international relations. In this case, the preferred individuals would be senior IR lecturers in the school’s faculty, as well as security and diplomacy experts in reputable international relations settings like Kenya’s foreign affairs ministry, the embassy of Somalia in Kenya, and the United Nations (UN). It is important to include all these experts in the interview because the ensuing outcomes would provide a balanced perspective on the issue. For instance, while Kenyan diplomats would support their nation’s position, Somalia’s would do the same. Consequently, this would enable the researcher to understand the issue from a broader perspective.

The focus group will consist of fellow students in the international relations class. Similarly, the discussions in the group would be semi-structured. The ideal number of participants is seven. The number is appropriate because it is not too big; thus, making it possible for the researcher (who will also serve as the moderator) to collect data as the discussions continue. Secondly, the number is adequate in providing diverse opinions on the subject. Such an approach is relevant because apart from offering guidance on the core issues up for discussion, it also provides room for openness; hence, allowing the researcher to gain more insights, unlike the case had the questions been structured.

Thematic analysis techniques will be applied in analyzing the data from both the focus group and the interview process. Therefore, transcription of audio from both the interview and focus groups would occur. Based on the transcribed notes, the researcher would assess the existence of common themes, which will then serve as the basis of this study’s findings, discussion, and recommendation sections.

Ethics and Human Protection

Maintaining ethics is a critical aspect of research. Consequently, it is essential to take into consideration such concerns during the process of this study. The confidentiality of the participants is a primary ethical consideration. No personal identifying information about the participants (in both the focus group and interview) will be published in the final research. This approach would guarantee confidentiality.

Additionally, the study relies significantly on secondary sources in its literature review section, a situation that would be replicated in the findings and analysis section. Thus, acknowledging the ideas of other scholars is a necessary ethical consideration. This outcome will be achieved through referencing, both in-text and full references in the bibliography section.

References

Bird, G., Blomberg, S. B., & Hess, G. D. (2008). International Terrorism: Causes, Consequences, and Cures. The World Economy, 31(2), 255–274. https://doi.org.10.1111/j.1467-9701.2007.01089.x

Bruneau, E. (2016). Understanding the Terrorist Mind. Cerebrum, 1, 13-16. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5198759/

Kelly, K. (2020). Somalia warns Kenya of UN action for its ‘destabilising’ role. https://www.nation.co.ke/news/Somalia-threatens-UN-action-against-Kenya/1056-5472730-g0qwn1z/index.html

Solarz, M. W. (2012). North–South, Commemorating the First Brandt Report: searching for the contemporary spatial picture of the global rift. Third World Quarterly, 33(3), 559–569. https://doi.org.10.1080/01436597.2012.657493

Piazza, J. (2008). Incubators of Terror: Do Failed, and Failing States Promote Transnational Terrorism? International Studies Quarterly, 52(3), 469-488. http://www.jstor.org/stable/29734247

Ragas, K. (2020). Somalia-Kenya Relations: A Potential Crisis in the Making. http://www.futuredirections.org.au/publication/somalia-kenya-relations-a-potential-crisis-in-the-making/

Reese, S. D., & Lewis, S. C. (2009). Framing the War on Terror. Journalism: Theory, Practice & Criticism, 10(6), 777–797. doi:10.1177/1464884909344480

Zahra, N. (2011). Terrorism, Realism, and the State. Pakistan Horizon, 64(1), 61-74. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24711143