PS 121 Final Study Guide

what do we mean by polarization?

- "A process whereby the normal multiplicity of differences in society increasingly align along a single dimension" - McCoy et al. - Identity polarization - as soon as we take one identity and make it who we are and take cross cutting issues binary it turns politics into us vs them -- politics is interpreted through one single dimension

next evolution - income inequality

- "As long as the rate of return exceed the rate of growth, the income and wealth of the rich will grow faster than the typical income from work." - piketty quoted in solow - What happens when there is instability? Class warfare? A lack of accountability? Economies need to have liquidity and consumers, income inequality drops number of consumers → bankruptcy

killer robots

- "I think human extinction will probably occur, and technology will likely play a part in this." - musk

klein - from twitter to charlottesville

- "If individuals are only in contact with people they already agree with, there is a danger that their opinions will polarize and become increasingly radical" - one does not have to communicate a textbook definition of fighting words to incite hostile action. In politics, pretexts are much more common rhetorical forms for conveying aggression without crossing a line into perceived belligerence - In this study, key pretexts are considered for their ability to effectively establish the necessity to take action against an enemy under well-encoded justifications. These include national security fears on the right and the crusade against fascism on the left. Such pretexts are powerful because they offer the appearance of mainstream politics that can draw more moderate followers into the fray by giving them a socially accepted framework - As revealed in the six-week sample, the use of select pretexts serves a strategic function beyond the inflation of facts. For groups such as the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers, who regularly traffic in conspiracies, false claims helped foment their followers around particular narratives that justified their rage or even built a case for action. Such "political" pretexts also provided the illusion of legitimacy for their cause. Rather than fanaticism, they are seemingly propelled by a reasoned stance

R. Rotberg - "failed states, collapsed states, weak states"

- "Nation states fail because they are convulsed by internal violence and can no longer deliver positive political goods to their inhabitants" → lose legitimacy - there is a hierarchy of political goods, with security being the most important - a state is considered failed when it flunks providing some goods - Loss of legitimacy when rulers only care to benefit themselves → ppl turn to sectional and community loyalties - Collapsed state is a rare and extreme version of a failed state: Vacuum of authority, Political goods are obtained thru private or ad hoc means, Security is equated with rule of the strong, Substrate actors take over - state failure is man-made and never accidental; human agency

"the destroyer of worlds"

- "Produce something evil by accident' - Engineers and scientists are unable or unwilling to see the future ramifications of new tech - But not all change is bad - "Roombas aren't going to take over the world" (e. musk) -

R. Solow - Thomas Piketty is Right

- "as long as the rate of return exceeds the rate of growth, the income and wealth of the rich will grow faster than the typical income from work." - this is why we are witnessing increasing inequality - this inequality is not rooted in the failure of economic institutions, but on the ability of the economy to absorb increasing amounts of capital without a substantial fall in the rate of return - ownership of wealth is increasingly concentrated among top 10 and 1% - .The recent surge of extreme inequality at the top of the wage distribution may be primarily an American development - Piketty's strong preference is for an annual progressive tax on wealth, worldwide if possible, to exclude flight to phony tax havens. He recognizes that a global tax is a hopeless goal, but he thinks that it is possible to enforce a regional wealth tax in an area the size of Europe or the United States - y. He estimates that such a tax applied in the European Union would generate revenue equal to about 2 percent of GDP, to be used or distributed according to some agreed formula

To repair a democracy

- 'The end of history' - f. Fukuyama 1992 - The world progressed beyond ideological conflict → democratic liberalism wins at end of cold war - end of history there is no moving beyond this - liberal democratic principles won YET - We have seen more ideological conflict in the years since - Ideological conflict is the defining feature of societal civil action

B. Atzili - when good fences make bad neighbors

- Adherence to the norm of fixed borders has led to international conflicts and growing instability by perpetuating and exacerbating state weakness, 3 factors: 1. No incentive to develop strong institutions to protect from external threats and expand 2. Hard to establish in group identity and loyalty to state without territorial threats 3. Without a mechanism through which weak states can be overtaken by stronger ones, the former may persist and perhaps become even weaker - Hypotheses why fixed borders promote conflict between neighboring states: 1. Fixed borders can perpetuate or exacerbate the weakness of already weak states 2. Weak states in a fixed-borders world can create conditions that can give rise to violent internal conflicts. 3. Refugee movements, insurgencies, and kin connections across international borders can cause civil conflicts in weak states in a fixed-borders world to spill over their borders and become international conflicts and possibly full-fledged wars. 4. State weakness promotes the possibility of international conflict by creating opportunities for neighbors to intervene to exploit the weak states economically or politically - juridicial statehood - international community preserves the shell of a state regardless of its overall weakness → encourages rulers in already weak states to abandon investment → makes the state even weaker - when borders cut through ethnic groups, any damage done to an ethnic group within a certain country will cause problems of the ethnic group within the other country

S. Patrick - Weak states and global threats

- Argues that there is little empirical evidence supporting the assertion that strong states must aid weak states to prevent terrorist and other threas: risk of US using too many resources to attack state weakness without setting appropriate priorities - Concern with weak and failing states is based on: security should encompass cross border threats driven by nonstate actors. Such threats have their origins in large measure in weak governance in the developing world - the challenge in handling these threats is sovereignty - terrorists are more likely to function out of weak, but functional states - policy analysts need to see which states are more likely to produce transnational threats and direct limited resources in aid to those countries - spillover effect - reliance on oil and gas from western countries - failing states are breeding grounds for pandemics

Homer-Dixon - "Terror in the Weather Forecast"

- Climate stress may well represent a challenge to international security just as dangerous and more intractable than the arms race between the US and the soviet union - Climate change is a threat multiplier in the world's fragile regions that exacerbated conditions that lead to failed states and terrorism and extremism - Environmental stress multiplied the pain caused by ethnic strife and poverty (threat multiplier) - Great powers can't always isolate themselves from the consequences of rising tensions in the developing world - human security is so much more important because existential threats have changed

drones

- Creative destruction suggests companies that do not use robots will eventually be destroyed - but this is unequal- Hits underdeveloped states first bc they have manufacturing, Hurts manufacturing the most - 77% of jobs in china will be replaced by robots; 69% of jobs in india - 57 of all manufacturing jobs worldwide at risk - humans are inefficient - in the US - Nearly 50% of jobs in LA; 42 % in SF; 41% in NYC

Bots combined

- Cyber attacks are not a large threat agianst developed states bc they are hard to weaponize - They are an annoyance... but not an existential threat - Doesn't revolutionize international security YET A. likely to see greater cyber war in industrial espionage - Goal is not to steal guns and bombs, but to steal plans for guns and bombs - Cyber threat makes it hard to maintain secrets - Secrets are crucial for international security - Spreading secrets is revolutionary...but it's more likely to be criminal B. likely to see stolen identities or compromised infrastructure - BOTH are unhelpful in international politics - more transformational in terms of terror attacks

Food

- Decline in crop yields (even w best technology farmers have ever had) - Climate change increases, crop yields decline → food gets much more expensive

world bank

- Designed to provide low interest loans to states to develop their economies - Long term loan solution

greitens - surveillance, security, and liberal democracy in the post COVID world

- Early data suggests that the pandemic's main effect has been to deepen existing political trends - Successful democratic responses have generally adhered to three criteria: (1) measures adopted have been necessary and proportional; (2) measures have been temporally limited and limited in scope; and 3) measures have been subject to democratic processes of review and accountability. Moreover, in some democracies surveillance and monitoring are explicitly linked to positive citizen rights, such as the right to testing and treatment. Norms, institutions, and public opinion have jointly contributed to democracy-protective responses - Finally, recent evidence suggests that contemporary autocratization is incremental, but difficult to reverse—implying that the payoff will be greatest if the US and the international community can arrest democratic erosion before it happens, rather than trying to repair erosion after the fact

relationship between economic collapse and engagement in international trade

- Economic collapse is a direct result of states engaging in international trade, something that should be a good thing - The more you trade, the more dependent you become on markets → any small decline in markets can generate collapse in weaker states

problem solving failure?

- External intervention exacerbates failure - you're not generating legitimacy for the gov't you're trying to help out → you only make that state look weaker - Social fabric is easy to destroy, but difficult to rebuild - In sum - failure begets failure, and creates seams for sub-state actors

pre-req to extremism

- Extra- factual info triggers insecurity in international system - Social media undercuts legitimacy to the state - Gives advantage to adversaries in international systems that can manipulate algorithms to push ideas to wider audience - commanding the trend - Extremism is danger to democracy - Bc democracy requires compromise and civics - extremism doesnt allow for compromise - How can states govern if polity is polarized? - World experiencing rise in authoritarian populism - Extremism is here to stay bc it wins elections - Polarization is a quality of the system - Extremism and polarization weakens states

IN SUM charlottesville

- Extremist groups rely on the other: - The more active their opponent, the more they are justified in their actions, the stronger their identity, and greater dehumanization - Extremist groups operate in pairs - thats when they become a threat bc you have organized groups that view each other as the bad guy - Polarization leads to more polarization and eventually violence

charlottesville

- Has created more polarization, not less - Can it happen in developed democracies? - YES Which is why the charlottesville case is instructive - There is a difference in extremist groups - but both feed off each other - Piece explores tribalism and identity - It comes down to rhetoric - a study of messaging - There is a difference in how extremist groups justify their actions - Violence is endemic to alt right extremist groups

Combatting Rumor

- How can states stop rumor-mongering from triggering violence - the problem is two-fold: 1. How can you sort? (extra factual infro from factual, humans from bots) 2. Who is the referee? Attempts of gov't to be the referee will only trigger more rumors and distrust - Absent a solution, social media will continue to be a threat - To participate in marketplace of ideas there should be a good faith effort to be truthful solutions? A. law - Strengthen and expand defamation laws - Problem? Anti democratic, costs b. toughen identification strategies, eliminate bot networks - Problem? Privacy issues c. break the monopoly - Create more viable social media sites - Problem? May make things worse - and allow more cyber security REGARDLESS: - Social media creates insecurity and anxiety, which only increases the passing of rumors - Attempts to regulate will be seen as anti-democratic and delegitimizes government

rumors and war

- If rumors do not lead to violence, then what is the trigger? - DISTRUST IN GOVERNMENT - distrust? : EX. #pizzagate - The democratic party supported a child trafficking ring - Leads to violence; organizes extremist groups online - EX. Mexico and WhatsApp - Zizumbo-colunga and M. Del Pilar Fuerte-Celis - What happens when actors seed social media with accounts of government illegitimacy? - Distrust in government increases credibility of rumors - Increases willingness to act and use violence - Conspiracies suggest violence as the only solution - Whatsapp and other social media are a source of political violence - Highlighting government illegitimacy increases support for populist movements

GATT

- If you are member, you give low tariff rates to other members → encourages trade → wealth and profits increase → prevents trade conflicts - States get most favored nation status

poor leadership

- Increase in corruption and less oversight - Creates permissive conditions for individuals to steal from state which undercuts the state bc it bankrupts states and they cant provide social welfare - "nation states do not stumble into failure" - importance of human agency - pattern to failure: leaders suspend democratic norms --> leaders consolidate power --> use violence against their population

J. McCoy et al - polarization and the global crisis of democracy

- It is the alignment of opinions under a single identity, rather than the radicalization of opinion, that "crystalizes interests into opposite factions" and threatens to undermine social cohesion and political stability - the constitutive trait of severe polarization is its inherently relational and political nature: it suppresses "within-group" differences and collapses otherwise multiple and cross-cutting intergroup differences into one single difference that becomes negatively charged and used to define the "Other." - We expect that the intergroup conflict dynamics characterizing severe polarization lead to the perception of zero-sum interests replacing positive-sum interests, impeding joint collective actions and reinforcing the perception of mutually exclusive identities in a vicious feedback loop

who is a good neighbor

- Literature says both weak state and strong state theory is true - Best neighbor is able to prevent rebels, but not weak enough to be enticing to invade, and also to provide benefits to neighbors - Canada is best neighbor

I. Saleyhan - transnational rebels

- Main argument - the use of external sanctuaries is one of the most common strategies employed by rebel groups to evade state repression - States hold a preponderance of power within their jurisdiction, when rebel groups operate out of neighboring states, they escape the repressive jurisdiction of the state, thus lower the costs of fighting and gain bargaining leverage

mcinnes and lee - "health, security, and foreign policy"

- Our main argument is to critique the narrow framing of the agenda to privilege one set of concerns over another - 2 arguments - First, the manner in which public health issues have begun to appear on foreign and security policy agendas reflects more the concerns of the latter than those of public health - ​​Second, the agenda has been dominated by two issues, the spread of selected acute and potentially epidemic infections and the risk of bio-terror. Yet, from the perspective of seeing health as threats to foreign policy and security, there are other issues which could be of equal concern. This article identifies two such examples - illicit activities and internal state instability - The concern over infectious diseases may therefore be understandable from a foreign and security policy perspective since they appear to pose risks to domestic populations, regional stability and economic growth. But this focus is problematic from a global public health perspective. Not only are the broader determinants of health underplayed (including poverty) but, from a global perspective, the health risks to populations in the industrialised world pall in comparison to those elsewhere. Moreover the focus on the spread of infectious disease obscures dangers from non-communicable diseases (including tobacco-related illnesses) which are related to foreign policy through international trade. In short, the attention given to the spread of infectious disease speaks more to the concerns of Western foreign (including economic) and security policy than it does for the concerns of global public health - What is clear however is that bio-terrorism's presence on the international agenda is because of the security risk it represents to the West, not because of its significance as a health risk; and that although public health systems have been involved in devising methods to protect against attack, this is within a national security context where national interests are paramount, as seen by the stockpiling of drugs and the prioritising of domestic concerns - The problem of failed or failing states may have traditionally been seen as a foreign policy problem, but the health implications at a national, regional and global level should not be underestimated

segmentation and fragmentation

- Picketty - continual increase in inequality will be the next world war - What happens when citizens cannot use currency to satisfy their needs? - Conflict and stability - Made worse by trade: a. Trade increases military power b. Take gains of trade and put them into military c.If currency collapses, military power collapses d. International trade changes the relationship between segments of society and introduces conflict

M. Burke et al - "Warming Increases the Risk of Civil War in Africa"

- Quantitative evidence linking past internal armed conflict incidence to variations in temperature, finding substantial increases in conflict during warmer years, and we use this relationship to build projections of the potential effect of climate change on future conflict risk in Africa - 1 °C warming represents a remarkable 49% relative increase in the incidence of civil war

why do strong states make bad neighbors

- Seems counterintuitive - stability is good! - Unfortunately stability is also good for transnational threats to thrive - they attract bad guys and the criminality spills over 1. strong states provide infrastructure - Easier for transnational threats to persist and escape 2. Legal protections - Strong states have strong laws and greater protections for bad guys 3. Provide education and organization - Bad guys thrive in strong states and can attract new recruits more easily 4. easy to move and protect finances - Asset protection means it is easier to avoid detection and forfeiture 5. Support from the population - Citizens can more easily support bad guys 6. Provide markets for illicit goods - Strong states fund transnational threats. (ex. US Mexico trade) - Strong states have a tendency to attack you - This is the problem of buffer states - states between two powerful states (fazal) - Buffers are threats and opportunities of strong states - Threat bc rival can take it - Opportunity bc it gives you an advantage - As a result, buffer states are most likely to die - Strong states attack buffers because of defense - These are preventative war - Absent war, strong states want weak neighbors - Its in the best favor of the strong state to keep neighbors weak in case they need to be taken over - But this also makes them a safe haven for bad guys, which also justifies the taking over of the state - Summary: Strong states make their neighbors: - Weaker - Prone to civil violence - Targets of predation - Strong states are bad neighbors

repairs - solutions

- Solutions? - we need to get out of dichotomous IDs and create more cross cutting IDs A. change procedure - FPTP voting systems encourage polarization - Encourage the development of more political parties - Polarization is worse when there are only two parties B. better leadership - Promote elites that do not use blame to win elections - Education? C. control media effects - Charlottesville was worsened by social media and biased mainstream media - Change the way in which the media cover politics - Find a way to control misperceptions and extra-factual info - Stress coalitions and not conflict D. build diverse political coalition - Encourage local civil-society groups to foster dialogue - ex. Clean up the beach THE IDEA - Focus on issues without making them partisan! -Everything is politicized and that need to end

solutions to destroyer of worlds

- States need to develop tech, but they need to do it in a moderate and controlled pace A. off switches - Tech needs to be developed with failsafes - Tech that goes awry will automatically turn itself off - Problem? Can be used by bad guys - can be hacked - STUXNET WAS an off switch B. better gov't - Tech needs to be litigated and legislated - Problem? Can deter any new technologies, and weaken a state economically and militarily, slow down market force, create econ and military weakness REGARDLESS: - Tech creates insecurity - but only if populations are already under stress - Solve that stress, and tech change is only a nuisance - Tech won't be a big deal if the state is strong, will actually generate healthier and wealthier populations

the goal of commanding the trend

- THE GOAL - CREATE DISAGREEMENT AND DISUNITY - Use the system against powerful, democratic states: - Over time , internal disagreements undercuts foreign policy - Bc allowing all ideas a space is a facet of liberal democracy, this can create instability YET - Most attempts at capturing social media fail to elicit responses - even fewer are successful in creating violence - Why should scholars focus on social media if it does not change political behavior?

effects of robots on international security

- The greater use of robots reduces the risks and costs of actual fighting - Which is why the UN has started to legislate the use of armed drones and LAW: 1. New norms of use - when it is appropriate 2. New laws of war - how and when to attack another state, old laws of war are based on whats humane for the soldier 3. Restrictions (against selling to non-state actors) - but is this true? - Position #1 - drones are a transformative technology - The cheaper the cost of war, the greater the chances of war - Reduces audience costs and makes fighting more likely - Position #2 - drones arent transformative, they are only an enhancing tech - Makes tactics more effective, but not strategy a. states already have the capacity for targeted strikes b. tech limits to drones - Not all states can use drones, and the limit for drone effectiveness is high - Horowitz - are drones gonna make war more likely - no: its somewhere between the two positions - They are cheaper and can be used for recon - But really only work against non-traditional threats Bots

B. Eichengreen - When Currencies Collapse

- The international monetary system now rests on just the dollar and the euro, similar to the system prior to the 30s economic crash - 30s crash: Boom in trade and movement of capital → global imbalances → surplus countries lend to deficit countries → deficit countries consumed the capital rather than invest → expansion of credit and alarming run up in asset prices. To prevent exchange rates from weakening us raised interests → deficit countries stopped borrowing → us exports fell → stock market crash - currency values fixed against dollar, and dollar fixed against gold post-war (bretton woods) - private market price of gold exceeded the US reserved - failure of bretton woods system didn't slow econ growth or undermine financial stability like the 30s - stable inflation - currently, states overwhelmingly desire to diversify away from the euro and dollar - Gridlock and partisanship prevent US using the financial house effectively. Europe is just as in debt as the us, but has no federal fiscal system to transfer resources from prosperous to troubled regions. because we have fiat currency and money is tied to politics, polarization makes the monetary system unstable - global currency is not viable

why weak states are bad neighbors

- The problem? Fixed borders - Fixed borders allow weak states to persist (atzili) - Absent a mechanism to cull the weak, fragility can invade a neighborhood 1. refugee flows - Weak states lead to forced migration and stress on neighborhoods → new individuals are vectors for health issues and crime - Immigrants to new countries create greater factionalization (ex. syria) 2. Kin country syndrome - Grievances in one state spillover into a neighboring state - Arbitrary borders cut through preexisting groups and their conflicts - Ex. rwanda & burundi; Kurds & turkey & iraq & syria - Kurdistan is well armed - allies of the US 3. greed - Weak states are the targets of opportunity for corrupt leaders - Allows extortion - Weak states overrun with criminals force govt' to ask for aid to get rid of the criminals, which just goes to the criminals 4. safe havens - Weak states are ideal for rebel mobilization (not failed states) - "External sanctuaries in neighboring countries provide opportunity for rebel mobilization" (saleyhan) - Rebels put their base of operations in weak, neighboring states because they have protection by the border- why sovereignty can lead to more and more civil violence - Combined - National boundaries significantly constrain the ability to hunt down bad guys - Weak states are bad neighbors

J. Prier - Commanding the Trend

- The spread of the propaganda message is accomplished by tapping into an existing narrative, then amplifying that message with a network of automatic "bot" accounts to force the social media platform algorithm to recognize that message as a trending topic - cyber operations today target people within a society, influencing their beliefs as well as behaviors, and diminishing trust in the government - (1) a message that fits an existing, even if obscure, narrative; (2) a group of true believers predisposed to the message; (3) a relatively small team of agents or cyber warriors; and (4) a network of automated "bot" accounts - If you have ability to dominate a specific space that all states operate, you can command the commons - You can use extra factual information to target the will of target gov'ts - Uses social media algorithms to amplify your message and reach new audiences - Find a way to create doubt in opponent states - The state that wins is the one that is unified bc it amplifies their power base - Social media brings people together and amplifies their message, you can change opinions

cyber security

- The study of how the software of a state can be hijacked and used against a state - Take critical infrastructure: More critical infrastructure that is vulnerable to internet-based attacks - The increasing connection of things creates vulnerabilities Or does it?: - Lindsey - "there is reason to believe that the considerable social and technical uncertainties associated with cyber operations will significantly blunt their revolutionary potential" - a. Criminality is more dangerous, not international security - 1. Weaker actors have asymmetric advantage - bc they can hide and strike at any time and strong states have a lot of targets - 2. Cyber offense is going to win over cyber defense (offense - defense theory) - The offense has the advantage in mobility and change - States don't know their vulnerabilities until after an attack 3. Difficult to deter cyber attacks - States dont go to large scale war bc of the costs - However, anonymity makes deterrence difficult or impossible - stuxnet suggests all three are incorrect

why is technology bad

- There is a connection between development of tech and development of state: anthro approach, tech makes society and society makes war - Capitalism and market forces makes continual replenishment - growth destroys old tech that becomes obselete - destorys industries that are connected to culture and state - the case of detroit

transnational security

- Think of a city block - bad neighbors are bad because: 1. They make the entire neighborhood less desirable 2. Bad neighbors free ride - they benefit from good neighbors - no incentive to spend their money to fix themselves, they dont fear the cost of their mismanagement 3. Difficult to evict - they are protected by law - When we look at international conflict, we should look at the state's neighbors, bc if there is no way for other states to pick up their bad neighbors, the whole system will be in disarray - Regions themselves suffer from security threats, not just individual states

Water

- Water scarcity triggers other kinds of scarcity - Impacts crop yields → food insecurity → conflict → population insecurity (find illegal ways to put food on the table) (leads to internal and external conflict)

regionalism

- a different way to analyze security problems - "Security analysis swings between an overemphasis on the dominant role of the great powers within the system, and an overemphasis on the internal dynamics and perspectives of individual states" (b. Buzan) - get rid of states and focus on regions as units of analysis - Take for example - the clash of civilizations - s. huntington: a. When you look at world, you focus on territoriality and borders - we think those borders contain the security threats, but really cultures exist outside those borders - conflict will become devoted among the edges of regions, not the borders of states b. Conflicts of the future will be fought between and for civilizations - not nation states - regions are defined by security concerns - regional security complexes - "local sets of states exist whose major security perceptions and concerns link together sufficiently closely that their national security perceptions cannot realistically be considered apart from each other" (Buzan & Waever) - These are not alliances - they are groups of states with a common fate - The importance of RSCs have increased since the end of the Cold War

T. John - this is why border fences don't work

- border fences dont actually work but it is best for psychological security - walls make people feel safer

the next evolution

- few can predict the next crisis - we do know: the US may be unable to provide stability to the market 1. challengers - More challengers, esp china trying to make the yuan be the currency of the last resort 2. political will- americans no longer have the will to be the currency of the last resort. Doesn't want the US to be tied down and held down by other countries and pay the cost of another crisis 3. energy politics - Eco scarcity --> bubbles. Cant use economics to satisfy eco scarcity. Everyone will be hit by global warming, there will be no system to hold others up when they collapse.

purchasing power

- how much you can get with one dollar has a direct affect on human insecurity - The more currency → more stuff you can buy → more stability - When purchasing power declines, humans are less able to support themselves → destabilizes states

Universal Basic Income

- how states can deal with these changes in the labor market - a form of social security where every citizen receives a regular, unconditional sum of money, independent of other income - Creative destruction is forcing us to reevaluate the value of our labor - Problem? What will people...do? - We are to some extent defined by our labor and contributions to society - Greater fragmentation - Increased income inequality and labor inequality

Defining failure of state

- inability to provide the political goods that allow us to be human: 1. security 2. social welfare 3. economic opportunity - strong stable currency that allows individuals to have jobs and support themselves and their families 4. political freedom - failed states are young states - must find a way to protect young states from the pressures of the international system

shocks

- include economic, ecological, political and cultural shocks - abrupt changes in everyday life (loss of wealth, health, political access and identity) - Stable states confront crises together - fragile states don't have that social fabric and common fate to weather change - The state society bargain ends, creating refugee flows, illicit economies, and permissive conditions for political violence

stuxnet

- lindsay - there is no cyber revolution A. STUXNET was an attack of a strong state agaisnt a weak one - Just follows patterns of traditional statecraft B. STUXNET was difficult to develop and use - Want to make sure the cyber attack was highly contained and only hurt iran nuclear program - Have to be careful and have a lot of info - Defense has the advantage C. STUXNET worked bc it could be deterred - States don't want to be anonymous, they want ppl to know who did it - US - we could do a cyber attack or bomb you

creative destruction

- markets are continually destroyed and created by society (joeseph Schumpter, capitalism, socialism, and democracy) - "Process of industrial mutation that incessantly revolutionizes the economic structure within, incessantly destroying the old one, incessantly creating a new one." - schumpters gale - the pace of change is quickening - To advance mareket economies, companies invest in new technology which eventually itself becomes obsolete and replaced by new companies/technologies - Replaces industries, and when those industries fail, the industries that support that industry also fail

Strategic Minerals

- minerals are not distributed evenly across the globe which creates conflict - Congo in civil war because of their rare Earth minerals - US has to import most of its rare earth minerals mainly from China - China could restrict access - demand for resources is increasing before minerals can regenerate

Insecurity and Scarcity

- national security of the future will be dedicated to fighting scarcity - the bi-polar world is dangerous, but stable - the eco-polar world is dangerous and unstable - 4-12% increase in violence, even controlling for democracy - great powers won't be immune to increase in violence and hegemonic stability won't apply

Energy

- peak oil thesis - once all oil sources are discovered, the ability to extract will decline. The decline in resources will cause oil prices to skyrocket and this will lead to economic destruction - offshore deepwater extraction is very ecologically devastating - the drive to find more ways to extract oil has pushed back the peak oil mark, but has caused more ecological destruction

solutions to piracy

- pirates need a place to hide, so solutions must deal with solving anarchy on land and sea 1.do nothing - just a cost we have to bear. but this encourages more piracy 2. increase policing - but what boats are fishing boats and which are terrorists? ocean is huge, where to begin looking for terrorists? c. eliminate sanctuaries where pirates live - this leads to deaths d. foreign economic aid - problem is that you have to ensure the government will redistribute aid rather than keep it for themselves

drones summary

- robots will without a doubt change society - BUT they do not change international relations - we have to worry about domestic stability and not international stability with automatons

what makes a bad neighbor?

- rogues? - tendency to support actors in the international system that violate international law - failed states? - don't provide benefit, encourage regional conflict and insecurity - The same problem with rogues and failed states also apply to strong states - it ultimately depends on the neighborhood

IMF

- short term lending institution whenever states fall short - States contribute some of their own money to imf every year - states use special drawing rights - no matter what happens, the money that countries put into the IMF is protected - not as trusted bc IMF is based on US dollar which is unstable

economic collapse reorganizes society

- state society bargain resets - no way to have continual growth and stability in economy - Pre-napoleonic era - bargains with landowners and state (state gets taxes from landowners in return for protection)→ led to the creation of larger armies → couldnt tax land owners more → create bank to borrow → debt → rely on winning next war to pay off debt - 19th C - britain says need to rely on trade instead of banking → invest in ships to expand trade → expansion was uneven, favored ship owners, not laborers → invest in manufacturing that hurt the lower classes → british system started to split → alliance system → WWI - Interwar period states acted to safeguard industrial manufacturing → tariffs on trade → increases cost and debt and reduces wealth → no currency available to continue economic growth → deepened split between haves and have nots → WWII caused by internal strife - Cold war and beyond - US tries to protect → us became consumer state, not manufacturing → take advantage of cheap labor overseas to manufacture → economies overseas reliant on US buying cheap things - What of the 2008 crisis? Great Recession? Americans invested in homes → took out loans → overburdened with debt → economy collapsed Unemployment in US rises → cant buy cheap crap overseas → international repercussions Picketty - wealth shock most dramatic for bottom 89th %

Tragedy of the Commons

- states cannot find a solution to climate change and resource scarcity because they do not share a common fate - individual rationality leads to environmental scarcity - tragedy of the commons happens when - 1. the benefits of feeding your sheep on the commons are personal and 2. the cost of maintaining the commons is diffused - The only way to solve environmental problems is to start working locally first -- the problem? There's no money in it, no incentive to get people to solve the problem, and the few who work will gain resentment and that creates political conflict

The Resource Curse

- states rich in natural resources are unable to use these resources to improve - possession of a resource is dangerous - makes states vulnerable to predators - why can they not use resources to improve? 1. internal competition and instability - Internal competition generates unequal access and aggregation of wealth - States lack authority to stop it - National defense will become local as populations look for new warmakers - The warlords are seen as the legitimate authority by the populations 2. external predation - Great powers pay attention to who has natural resources - Give aid in turn of access to resource extraction - Supports illegitimate leaders - didn't have any real supporters other than those who were bribed Encourages greater levels of environmental degradation Countries could never pay it off so they start to pump out more resources to pay off debt which leads to faster enviro degradation - In Africa - Weak governments naturally allowed individuals to emerge - individuals took the form of criminal enterprises. Realized if states are weak, they could gain power

J. Lindsat - Stuxnet and the limits of cyber warfare

- suggests all 3 assumptions of the cyber revolution are incorrect: 1. it was an attack of a strong state against a weak one 2. it was difficult to develop and use 3. it worked bc it could be deterred - There is reason to believe that the considerable social and technical uncertainties associated with cyber operations will significantly blunt their revolutionary potential

Solutions to Eco-Scarcity

- technology: better crops, the magic bean? - faith that humanity will develop better tech that solves all problems but that is wrong - better insurance - requires money and strong gov't, protects farmers from year to year variations. problem? you need to have money and a strong government to distribute it - New sources of energy - reduces climate change, increases jobs, continued use of oil makes things cheaper. BUT this destroys old jobs and industries

terrorism

- terrorists take advantage of legitimacy issues - the dire choice for states is whether to commit savagery or surrender - both choices benefit terrorists more than the state - strong states are at the disadvantage, if they do too much they're imperialist and it's hard to identify terrorists - Terror is an act of communication that relies on symbolic action- Communicating to people to get them to follow your group and communicate with their enemies. Requires constant attention. Why failed states are weak to terror groups - get constant attention bc they pose a threat

the case of detroit

- the death of a great american city due to tech - Grew through industrialization and rise of automobiles --> Detroit declines as tech changes --> When population leaves, tax base drops → no money to invest in infrastructure --> Lost market share in international system --> Companies in detroit did not adjust to the changing tastes of the international system - voters in michigan feared immigrants were stealing their jobs when they should have feared tech. manufacturing jobs continue to decline nationally

R. Kaplan - The Coming Anarchy

- the environment is a national security issue - the withering away of central governments make them less equipped to deal with the resource scarcity that results from climate change: rise of tribal and regional domains, unchecked spread of disease, and growing pervasiveness of war. - because global warming affects different groups in countries differently, hardest hit groups will turn to ethnic and cultural leaders, rather than leaders of the state - Anarchic explosions of violence will lead to mass migrations that will worsen tensions - Refugee peasant increase in cities → national borders will mean less and more power will fall into the hands of the less educated groups who view borders of culture and tribe as the most tangible borders - state's legal monopoly on violence will be taken away - nation -state conflict → ideological conflict → cultural conflict - artificial colonial borders make west africa more susceptible to these threats: cultural and religious monuments are weapons of war - Ultimately, The map of the world will never be static, reflecting migrations, explosions of birth rates, and sites of diseases - in places where western enlightenment has not penetrated and where there is poverty they turn to violence

Bots!

- the problem of software is that it is hard to differentiate real from fake - information is powerful: - The US, cold war, and use of radio free europe (radio stations that would beam radio into eastern europe to exert western influence and create dissent for gov't in E europe) - ROK, USB sticks and DPRK - south korea sends balloons with south korean culture (kpop, kdrama, etc) hoping north koreans will see it and create dissent - Wiebo and FB - china "China's heavy-handed censorship now actually accelerate the spread of rumors, which could be seen as more plausible precisely because they are censored."

the problem w rumors

- the psychology of rumor tends to neglect the environment - Greenhill and oppenheimer: a. Rumors are likely to spread in conflict zones b. Conflict zones are hotbeds of dread rumors

M. Horowitz - The consequences of drone proliferation

- while current-generation drones will introduce some unique capabilities into conflicts around the world, they are also unlikely to produce the dire consequences that some fear. In particular, drone proliferation carries potentially significant consequences for counterterrorism operations and domestic control in authoritarian regimes - drones are unlikely to aid states' coercive capabilities vis-à-vis other governments except in cases where there is already a large imbalance of power - for example, against a country that lacks air defenses to defeat drones - intrastate conflicts - where insurgents, domestic protest groups, or suspected terrorists are less likely to have sophisticated air defense systems - are well best-suited to the use of drones - drones prob won't make war more likely - they are cheaper and can be used for recon but only really work against non-trad threats

what happens when currency collapses

1. 1930s gold standard - Bank failures in austria spread globally (either borrow or tax citizens to recover from war) tight connection between banks and states, if banks fail, it will drag government along w it - Bank failures in austria spread globally (either borrow or tax citizens to recover from war) tight connection between banks and states, if banks fail, it will drag government along w it - Investors retreated to safer currencies and liquidated foreign exchange reserves - Result - great depression - Currency was tied to gold - dont need a currency of last resort (the one stable currency) as long as price of gold is stable - investors pull out gold, more currency than gold to back it up → system collapses 2. 1970s - moving to fiat currency - Post war US instituted changes to stabilize markets - How do you regrow the world economy?: Pay the odds - Bretton woods: IMF, World Bank, Gatt - The problem? - this benefitted the US most and generated animosity - The nixon shock: US decoupled the value of the dollar from gold, and allowed dollars to be traded (known as fiat currency - value of dollar is not tied to gold, the value of a dollar is set by currency trading - however much people are willing to trade) 3. 2000s: govt. involvement - Floating currencies allow governments to manipulate value - Federal reserve can pull dollars out of system if there is too much or print more if there is not enough - Federal reserve essentially manipulated the value of the dollar - Similar to the 30s a lack of liquidity created crisis - Problem? THERE IS NO SAFE HAVEN FOR WEALTH - The lesson of the great recession is that powerful states do what they want, and the weak suffer what they must - Gov't has so much control fo value of currency they can affect purchasing power, but this can go very south bc we don't know the true value of money → variability and instability

lessons from economic collapse

1. Affected states unevenly - Export led economies suffered more - Trade restrictions made this worse - US needed to discourage trade to prevent more debt - US made weaker states focus on exports - during crisis US couldn't keep buying → export led economies collapse - Economic collapse isolates states 2. Affected segments of society differently (pickety) - IN DEVELOPED ECONOMIES - "Rich get richer" effect, poor got poorer - Ppl with investments in stocks could put their money in somewhere safer (gold) - rich were able to sell and buy low - IN UNDERDEVELOPED ECONOMIES - State weakness and MNCs amplified corruption - Rich got richer, poor got poorer 3. Changed distribution of wealth - States forced into austerity (stopped spending money, reduce budget, stop putting cash into econ) measures; unable to provide social safety net - Austerity undercuts the rebuilding process - "An economic crisis that began in the rich world risks becoming a humanitarian crisis everywhere else." - Globalization weakens everyone during collapse

Types of Scarcity

1. Demand-induced scarcity (population growth) - Inability of a strong welfare state to support population growth (paid maternity leave → incentivize people to have more kids → deplete the social net) - diffuse costs (pay in taxes), individual benefits (social security) 2. Supply-induced scarcity - depletion of resources

Environmental Lecture - 4 Categories of Human Security

1. Political Security - Individuals are not free (arbitrary governance - if you are discriminated against, that is political insecurity) 2. Economic and Social Security - Freedom from poverty - inherent right to work and have a livable wage and participate in economy to support yourself - "Freedom from want" - not necessarily just what they need - Need strong social security net 3. Cultural Security - Freedom from ethnic or religious domination (because it inherently excludes some individuals) 4. Environmental Security - Freedom from eco destruction and resource scarcity - Humans have inherent right to support themselves and have necessities to survive (shelter, clean water) environment provides the scarce resources and has to be available - As states got good at resource extraction, it makes us more insecure environmentally today (states were too successful at resource extraction) - even though a state is secure, individuals within a state may not be secure

why are regional security complexes (RSCs) important

1. The decline of Great Power influence in the periphery 2. Security is geographically bound 3. Higher demand for regional alliances - why are RSCs important today? - most importantly bc of unipolarity - The problem? We still have bad apples - states unable to contribute to solutions

three conditions that let rumors spred

1. Worldview - Rumors that mimic audience beliefs are more likely to pass 2. Threat perception - Rumors that generate anxiety or fear - This can vary by individual - diff thresholds of how much anxiety and fear they can handle - Giving voice to your anxiety can ease your worries 3. Repetition - How often individuals hear the rumor - greater repetition → transmission - Fear of missing out, don't want to be the last person to know something Example: "i dont want bill gates to control me" - - RUMOR - the covid vaccine is part of a vast conspiracy funded by the Gates foundation to control behavior and reduce human population: 1. Worldview - resonates w anti-gov't populations 2. Anxiety - public health fears 3. Repetition: spread by the 'disinformation dozen' - 12 accounts that accounted for 65% of this rumor being spread

The 4 D's (responses to terrorism)

1. defeat (offensive CT) drone, quietly kill terrorists and pull out 2. defend (defensive CT) make it more difficult for a terror attack to be accomplished 3. deny (end state sponsorship) Maintain list of states that support terror actions - put sanctions, greater policing, gives greater argument to international system to punish that state 4. diminish (solve underlying conditions - this is prob the only real solution) Terror emerges when fragile state didnt provide political groups. Eliminate permissive conditions and the sanctuary

post pandemic economics

1. growth in inequality - Piketty was right. - Richer countries have experiences more loss of life than poorer countries - If you're poor in a wealthy nation, you did terribly 2. changes in how humans work - Companies allow flexibility in how people work - ex. From home - Ppl prefer working from home, employers prefer in person → could lead to conflict 3. the anti-work movement (aka the great resignation) - Citizens realize theyre being abused and dont want to go to work - Income is rising, but primarily from government assistance - Ppl realize theyre not recieving enough pay to survive - 40 million workers quit, → recession bc theyre not generating wealth 4. supply chains - Retailers dont have the stuff for consumers to buy - Inability to meet demand → gap → economic stress

two things international trade does

1. increases state security 2. creates dependency BUT ALSO changes the power structures within states

how can we solve regional security problem?

1. international agreements - Find ways to solve collective action problems - Problem? IOs have weak enforcement mechanisms 2. New identity (ex. EU) - You are not just french, you are european, so a european problem concerns you - Problem? Can only do so much; threatened by new stresses - when you become a collective and make a regional problem a personal one, you want to distance yourself from the problem 3. fences - Make it harder for problems in weak states to spill over - Surprisingly common in the international system - Problem? Expensive and they don't work: - They generate corruption - Political debate - Tramples on human rights - Violates property and individual rights - Best thing to do if youre a neighbor to a weak state is give them aid

what leads to failure?

1. poor leadership 2. a lack of state development 3. shocks

a lack of state development

1. sovereignty - External actors make it worse by giving sovereignty to illegitimate leaders - you should let failing states fail rather than prolonging the suffering 2. norms of human rights - Successful human rights is a western construct - forcing states to adhere to norms that they can't and this leads to failure 3. internal discontent - Discontent that developing population doesn't have what the first world has

three tactics in commanding the trend

1. trend distribution - States are using tools to apply a message to what is already trending - Usually the form of unrelated hashtags to topics actively distributed by users 2. trend hijacking - Governments use their own bot networks (and not just community members) to disseminate rumors - Not piggybacking, this is forcing your content onto a trend - Literally 'hijacking' trending topics through automated systems 3. trend creation - Governments actively create new topics, spread them through bot networks, tag them, and use influencers to help propagate - This is propaganda: creating rumors and injecting them into social channels - must be sophisticated THE GOAL - CREATE DISAGREEMENT AND DISUNITY

two dimensions

1. who creates wealth - For rogowski, economic activity/benefits are unevenly divided within a state - Capital, land, labor - these sectors compete with each other and the way they interact can generate different types of politics - When shocks disrupt trade the agreement between economic sectors falls apart and leads to conflict and scarcity - Exposure to trade generates competition for benefits - When society tries to reconfigure from shocks, society and politics can be resrtuctured, Free trade generates wealth, but the wealth is not evenly distributed → conflict - The global trading regime causes state failure 2. who holds wealth, and how are these divisions within society related to violence and war - How much is the state benefiting from it and extracting wealth from different segments of society - Mcdonald - the most important variable underlying conflict is the war chest: If a state has a strong tax mechanism and military resources, they use them to build empire. If state has weak taxation mechanism, restricts global conflict - When private assets > public assets: peace - When public assets > private assets: war - Financial resources allow leaders to survive in office even after foreign policy failure

why is polarization rising?

A. the end of the cold war - In particular, the end of the cold war consensus: repubs and dem refrained from demonizing the other side to prevent showing lack of communication in the face of the soviet threat - supported policies to expand military and fight the biggest threat - Existential threat existed - Soviet union falls and there is no longer existential threat B. resentment - true middle class resentment - Globalization + international trade lead to the abandonment of the middle class - International trade caused polarization - Politics began to focus on loss of opportunity - Politics of blame - blame immigrants for taking jobs, young generations for asking for help, etc C. authoritarian populist leaders - Use resentment and xenophobia to create wedge issues - Politicians use this resentment to their advantage - Elected officials serve those only who support them - this only creates more polarization and resentment - There is no american being properly served by politics IN GENERAL - The rise of extremism is a result of liberalism winning the cold war - The rise of populist movements (esp those of the alt right) sowed discontent - Leftist groups responded to mobilize against authoritarianism - Modern extremism is a technologically savvy, widespread, and developed strategy

two types of rumors

A. wish rumors - Info that could fulfill our deepest wishes B. dread rumors: - Much more powerful and common bc they refer to our survival - Extra-factual info that tells us that the end is near and we need to take cover - Usually the core of conspiracy theories - In general - humans are much more likely to spread dread rumors - We like to pass on this info and share the burden bc we think we are protecting people - We don't check if the rumor is true - we spread them bc 'we know something that others don't - All info, when is comes to extra-factual info, is social

IN SUM

EXTREMISM AND POLARIZATION EVOLVE TOGETHER - The rise of one extreme is matched by its opposite, and democratic governance starts to backslide

Charlottesville Findings

Findings 1. Marked difference in messaging - Both groups are extremists but putting all groups in one category is misleading, inaccurate, and inappropriate 2. Groups walk a fine line - They need to communicate their extrenmist ideas, but not openly communicate extremist language - This is the use of 'dog whistles' and codes - they know they can't be openly racist 3. Extremist groups fight existential threats - Motivated to paint the other side as an uncommon enemy - Far right - nationalist messaging - Far left - globalist and ideological messaging - BOTH CLAIM THEY ARE DEMOCRATIC!!! AS A RESULT - difference in tactics - alt- right - offensive: Ready for for; organize militias and stockpile for the fight that is to come - Far left - defensive messaging: - Doxxing; use social media to shame participants - Say they are defending people that cant defend themselves

extremism - patterns

Global authoritarianism rose since the end of the cold war - Ex. egypt, france, britain, the philippines, and brazil - And of course the us - trumpism - authoritarian populist movement - Politicians need polarization to win elections - Polarization is a feature not an accident - We are manifesting echo chambers in person and online

is socia media a threat to states? two positions:

No - rumors are inconvenient, but non strategic YES - social media acts as a cheap offensive weapon for weaker states - More accessible resources to disseminate info

M. Nicola et al - the socioeconomic implications of the coronavirus pandemic

Primary Sectors - 'Panic buying' is further complicating shortages beyond supermarket shelves . In more ordinary times, cheap oil may have functioned as an advantage for economies. However, savings on petrol are unlikely to be redirected into more spending as populations are instructed to practice social distancing and the working class are uncertain about job security secondary sectors - Importation issues and staffing deficiencies stood out as the key concerns for businesses due to disruption to supply chains and self-isolation policies. Indeed, for many roles within a manufacturing company, 'working from home' is not a viable option. - tertiary sectors - COVID-19 has had an impact on social mobility whereby schools are no longer able to provide free school meals for children from low-income families, social isolation and school dropout rates. It has also had a significant impact on childcare costs for families with young children. Additionally, there exists a wide disparity amongst populations with a higher income who are able to access technology that can ensure education continues digitally during social isolation

poverty and war

Very strong correlation between poverty and war - Developing countries who's economy relies on the export of goods can only hope that good will continue to be bought, otherwise economy will collapse - The weaker the state is the more conflict there is

greenhill and oppenheimer - rumor has it

a. Rumors are likely to spread in conflict zones b. Conflict zones are hotbeds of dread rumors - Political environment encourages the spread of rumors - Rumors make conflict harder to stop and easier to start bc of presence of misinformation - To mediate conflict, you must first stop the spread of extra factual information BUT REMEMBER - This requires anti-democratic intervention (which then only confirms the rumor)

social media as a weapon

a. anonymity - Provides plausible deniability for actors who are willing to use it for propaganda purposes b. difficult to deter - bc its anonymous c. effective - can change public opinion, generate instability, undermine gov't stability IN SUM - social media can be easily weaponized - First - develop a rumor/mantra - Second - deploy - Third - mine the data Figure out what defines the group that that rumor is spreading in - Four - seed the rumor Rumros spread by generate dread and fear Eventually you dont need to rely on individuals to spread, you can rely on bots - Five - track, re-deploy, and repeat - This is COMMANDING THE TREND (Prier)

consequences of high polarizaiton

a. collective action - Us vs them motivates group members to act against the enemy - zero-sum logic that reduces cooperation and increases violence b. weakened democratic norms and institutions - Zero sum mindset leads to no cooperation and compromise between groups - Civics disappear, replaced w power grabs - Dehumanization of political elites c. cascades - When politics lead to more and more norm violations - The 'broken window' model: - You break one norm, and the rest follow - Democratic backsliding - becomes more and more authoritarian d. state failure - Governance collapses when norms no longer apply citizens look to different war makers and alternative sources of authority - State fails to live up to its side of the state society bargain - Ex. the balkans - Fall of the ussr - Rise of milosevic - Abuse of gov't - Secessionism and its spread

solutions to failure

a. government assistance - Pros - low cost, spurs development Cons- not effective, benefits autocrats. Only way gov't assistance works if there is a stable gov't to assist, but gov;t cant get stable without cash b. transnational administration (send military in to create stability) - Pros- gives you a state, democracy take over, stability, quell ethnic disputes, allows both state and economy to develop slowly. Cons - costly, generates animosity(violence against the peace keepers, they become vectors for disease, sexual abuse, drug abuse, illicit economy) c. trusteeship (outside state takes over sovereignty, get rid of leadership add another state on top of it) Pros - limits corruption, limits competition Cons - neither weak nor strong approve: Imperialism - generates real grievance Once you create a stable state and withdraw, grievance will create future instability d. Shared sovereignty - outside actor shares responsibility of the state with the state - gain benefits of trusteeship w/o long term costs - Pros - historical examples (us and japan), stabilizes region Defeated states go back to being powerful states in international system Cons - expensive, difficult, only after war? Difficult to find a state to do it and to maintain shared sovereignty Losers after war only accept it because they lost - WEAK STATES ARE THE PROBLEM, NOT FAILED STATES - Weak states rely upon criminals and terrorists to generate wealth in the international economy, and to be able to compete in international trade - AND you can use statecraft against weak states, rather than the costly solutions to fixing failed states Foreign aid - fight corruption; strengthen states, etc Intervention - support existing government

summary of motor city

a. it is rational and necessary to incentivize entrepreneurs b. but entrepreneurs introduce market changes c. these changes generate uncertainty and insecurity in the short term - Insecurity in the short term can manifest political conflict

how to measure stability

demographic pressure, refugees, whether or not a state is suffering from brain drain (migration of innovators), legitimacy

what do we mean by rumor

extra-factual information - informal information passed within society - Allows us to understand reality, but it may not be wise or factual - this information has valence: rumors tell you what to do - Tries to tell you what's a threat and what's not - Rumors are so difficult bc it tells you how the world is, and what you should do - if you don't follow you're not following wisdom a and not following norms - rumors are a threat do democracies - alport and postman, to stop communism, newly democratic states need to stop rumor mongering