I came across an interesting analysis of the current state of world politics and international relations that described the current style of action of various players as WEAPONISED INTERDEPENDENCE.
The concept essentially rests on the following ideas:
- when parties are highly interdependent through various networks (financial, informational, transport, energy etc.)
- those networks are not “flat” and non-hierarchical but actually develop an asymmetry of hubs and nodes (consider by analogy how airlines organise hubs and nodes)
- players can then have control of or work to gain control of critical (or a majority of) hubs
- these hub-controlling players are then in a position to coerce rivals and other players - WHO ARE DEPENDENT ON THESE NETWORKS
The paper is due to be published this summer but a draft version is available online here:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/cbv95thldv...sion.docx?dl=0
The authors have a website, here: http://henryfarrell.net/wp/weaponizedinterdependence/
Here is the paper title and abstract:
The paper is rather long (51 pages) and if this is a bit much to go through, there are some review articles already published.Weaponized Interdependence: How Global Economic Networks Shape Coercion and Surveillance
Henry Farrell and Abraham Newman
Forthcoming, International Security (Summer 2019)
Abstract: Liberals claim that globalization has led to fragmentation and decentralized networks of power relations. This does not explain how states increasingly ‘weaponize interdependence’ by leveraging global networks of informational and financial exchange for strategic advantage. We explain how weaponized interdependence works. We begin from the theoretical literature on network topography, showing how standard models predict that many networks grow asymmetrically so that some nodes are far more connected than others. This nicely describes several key global economic networks, centering on the US and a few other states. Highly asymmetric networks allow states with (1) effective jurisdiction over the key nodes, and (2) appropriate domestic institutions, to weaponize their structural advantages through two mechanisms. First, they can employ the ‘panopticon effect’ to gather strategically valuable information. Second, they can employ the ‘chokepoint effect’ to deny network access to adversaries. We test these arguments’ plausibility across two extended case studies that provide variation both in the extent of US jurisdiction and in domestic institutions – the SWIFT financial messaging system, and the Internet, finding that the outcomes match the framework’s predictions well. We conclude by discussing the policy implications, and the strategies targeted states may use to insulate themselves.
Here is one: https://www.project-syndicate.org/co...-ferry-2019-07
~~~
This concept of weaponised interdependence seems an extremely useful mental model for thinking about what is happening in the world and, I think, can be extended beyond geopolitics. In particular, it seems apt to use it to consider how other facets of human life, as they move online and become networked, can be easily controlled and weaponised.