Read about perspectives on policing. Received this from a friend? SUBSCRIBE [[link removed]] CRITICAL STATE Your weekly foreign policy fix. If you read just one thing…

… read about perspectives on policing.

One question that police abolitionists get used to hearing a lot is “if your house gets broken into, who are you going to call?” It’s meant as a gotcha, despite the fact that once your house has been broken into, police aren’t much help. A new study [[link removed]] in the journal Criminology, however, asks the question earnestly, and finds some compelling answers. The study measures variations in people’s attitude toward police based on race. It finds that white people in the US overwhelmingly do not fear police, and Black people overwhelmingly do. Indeed, over half of Black respondents said that they would prefer to be robbed than to be searched by police, and nearly half said they would prefer to be robbed than to be questioned by police. Beyond that, Black people expressed an altruistic fear that police would hurt others that was nearly wholly absent from white responses. Both the legacy and modern reality of racialized police violence have fundamentally shaped what policing means to Black Americans – a fact that people who believe policing can be fixed with technocratic reforms should have to grapple with.

How security force assistance actually works

Typically, when social scientists think about one country attempting to improve the military of another, they use a “principal-agent” framework – a game theory concept named after a pretentious remake of the 1990 Arnold Schwarzenegger classic Kindergarten Cop. Basically, it’s the idea that when one country gives resources to another to do something on its behalf, the receiving country can take those resources and do whatever it wants with them. But a straight transfer of resources isn’t what security force assistance looks like in real life. Instead, it’s more of an informal, individual relationships game.

Political scientist Nina Wilén adopts that informal approach to studying security force assistance in a new article [[link removed]] in the Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding. By closely studying how Belgian special operations troops conducted training in Nigerien soldiers, she was able to learn about the impact Belgium is able to make with its security partners.

Belgian security assistance rarely involves actual transfers of weapons or other goods, yet it is still quite popular, in part because receiving countries often face the same kinds of junior partner challenges Belgium faces in NATO. Belgian troops can offer real peer relationships to their trainees, and create interpersonal, professional connections.

FORWARD TO A FRIEND [[link removed]] Putting a number on aid corruption

In one sense, getting mad about the problem of corruption in foreign aid is slightly prudish. If money from former colonizers is going into developing economies with few strings attached, how much does it matter if it’s being spent on the exact thing that the former colonizers decided it should be used for? The problem, though, is that often the money isn’t going into developing economies. Instead, it's being taken out and put into tax shelters so that no one benefits from it except some wealthy individuals. Some economists got together to find out [[link removed]] just how much foreign aid is getting diverted each year.

Short answer: a lot. For every 1% of GDP increase in aid to the most aid-dependent countries, deposits from those countries in banks in the world’s tax havens increase 3.4%. If you do some fancy math, the outcome is that about 7.5% of aid dollars end up in Swiss (or Cayman or Singaporean etc.) bank accounts.

Slightly longer answer: It’s the secrecy that drives the graft. Places like Jersey (the old one) and Belgium are tax havens, but they still require disclosures about whose name is on a bank account. They experience no significant increase in deposits when aid goes up. But Switzerland and Luxembourg, where bank secrecy is like a state religion? When aid flows, the money comes pouring in.

FORWARD TO A FRIEND [[link removed]] DEEP DIVE Protest Projection: Part I

Most protests are directed against a fairly immediate authority. When you march on a picket line, you’re protesting to get more leverage over your boss. When you and your neighbors fill up your downtown chanting “Black lives matter,” you’re protesting (in part) to get more leverage over your local government and police department. But protests have other audiences, many of which are farther away – physically and conceptually – than the people the protest is aimed at. This week and next on Deep Dive, we’ll look at new research about how protest movements impact third parties.

Sometimes the audience that takes an interest in your protest isn’t even in your country. That happened to Arab Spring protesters in a variety of different ways. People around the region looked at early protests in Tunisia and took inspiration. Then Twitter took an interest and decided that it was the hero of the protests. In the end, though, for many protesters, it was foreign governments that were among the most effectual audiences for their protests. For protesters in Bahrain, Syria, Libya, and Yemen, that meant military interventions by foreign powers in response to their protests, most of which have had devastating consequences.

In a new article [[link removed]] in the journal International Politics, political scientist Shamiran Mako develops a theory about why protests led to interventions in those four countries and why those interventions played out the way they did. In Mako’s telling, though the uprisings in each country were aimed at securing concessions from that country’s government, the reality of the near-simultaneous uprisings throughout the region changed not just the situation of each individual country but the entire regional order. Each individual movement on its own did little to change the international structure, but when they all rose at the same time it upended the regional balance of power.

With the regional balance of power up in the air due to the protests, Mako argues, regional powers saw opportunities to meddle in their neighbors’ affairs in ways that were not possible before. Because the legitimacy of so many governments had been called into question, all of a sudden regional powers could intervene not just at the level of the state but with the elements of the coalition of groups that, in normal times, formed the state.

In Yemen, for example, the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), the Saudi-led regional group responded to protests by trying in 2011 to broker a transition that would remove dictator Ali Abdellah Saleh and replace him with another GCC-oriented leader. In a situation where Yemen was the only country in the region undergoing transition, the GCC effort might have succeeded, since there would be little reason for other parties to upset the balance of power. As negotiations continued in the post-Arab Spring era, however, other players joined and initiated or increased their support for other Yemeni factions. Qatar and Turkey backed groups associated with the Muslim Brotherhood, and Iran directed some resources to the Houthis. By 2015, with the Houthis gaining ground militarily and Saudi Arabia responding with direct military intervention, the promise of democratization in Yemen had faded almost completely. Instead, the country had become a battleground for factions seeking to stake or expand their claim to a piece of the new regional order being born.

Basically, chaos is a ladder, but ladders go both up and down. Foreign powers pay particular attention to domestic social movements because, when successful, they create moments when the rules of the international game can change. In the Arab Spring, the pace and scale of the rule changes created incentives for regional and world powers to target states that could be profitably be divvied up into factions. For people in those states, who began protesting hoping to resolve the contradictions in their societies, the effect of foreign intervention was often disastrous.

LEARN MORE [[link removed]]

FORWARD TO A FRIEND [[link removed]] SHOW US THE RECEIPTS

Lucía Benavides profiled [[link removed]] an Argentinian tango collective that pairs its members’ feminist politics and love of dance. Historically, tango songs have often reflected the patriarchal values of 19th century Argentina, where the style was invented. Some songs that are still popular today hinge on themes of domestic violence. Yet a new generation of tango musicians and dancers are working to create a new tango canon, drawing on the art and experiences of women. Collectives like La Empoderosa Orquesta Atípica in Buenos Aires promote the music of trans and cis women who sing about modern political issues and how those issues affect their lives.

George Lopez [[link removed]] argued for urgent reforms to US sanctions regimes to lessen the burden they impose on civilians in sanctioned countries. These sanctions regimes, ostensibly instituted in the name of human rights, have immiserated millions while producing precious little policy change from the targeted governments. Lopez in particular advocated for the Biden administration to make arrangements to allow crucial food aid and other forms of lifesaving materials to enter countries like Syria and Venezuela, as well as loosen foreign exchange restrictions on regular Iranians.

Rebecca Kanthor reported [[link removed]] on the celebration of the Daoist goddess Mazu in China and Taiwan. Mazu, who is said to have been born on an island between Taiwan and the Chinese mainland, is a major cultural and religious figure on both sides of the Taiwan Strait. As a result, festivals for Mazu have become important sites of cultural exchange between Taiwan and China. The Chinese government in particular has promoted the festivals, because it seeks to increase social and financial ties between the two countries as part of its effort to reincorporate Taiwan back into China.

FORWARD TO A FRIEND [[link removed]] WELL PLAYED

It’s hard to overstate the work that “alleged/provisional” is doing in this [[link removed]] drawing.

Tired: The world of Pokémon is little more than a dystopic parable about the evils of carceral capitalism, as demonstrated in the classic film, "Pokemon Detective Pikachu." (2019)

Wired: Whatever is happening in this [[link removed]] conceptual oroboros.

He’s got no thumbs, extremely long claws, and those chess pieces are very small, so his job seems [[link removed]] plenty hard already.

Critical State usually takes no position on the relative merits of violent versus nonviolent protest, but in this [[link removed]] case it really seems like they should’ve held a rally.

Never let it be said that STEM education failed [[link removed]] among US millennials.

Hooah [[link removed]], Rocco.

FORWARD TO A FRIEND [[link removed]] Follow The World: DONATE TO THE WORLD [[link removed]] Follow Inkstick: DONATE TO INKSTICK [[link removed]]

Critical State is written by Sam Ratner with Inkstick Media.

The World is a weekday public radio show and podcast on global issues, news and insights from PRX and GBH.

With an online magazine and podcast featuring a diversity of expert voices, Inkstick Media is “foreign policy for the rest of us.”

Critical State is made possible in part by the Carnegie Corporation of New York.

Preferences [link removed] | Web Version [link removed] Unsubscribe [link removed]