Latest / Diplomacy and International Relations / Summer 07: Global Civil Society - How Activists Rewrite International Law

Transcript

Summer 07: Global Civil Society - How Activists Rewrite International Law · Diplomacy and International Relations

0:00
Welcome back everyone. Hey there, glad to be here.
0:02
So welcome to the 7th episode of our Diplomacy and International
0:07
Relations summer series. Hard to believe we're already on
0:10
episode 7. I know right, time flies and for
0:14
everyone listening, especially the HF and gymnasium students or
0:18
any practitioners tuning in, make sure to follow and
0:21
subscribe definitely. And also you know you can
0:24
subscribe to us on Patreon. It really helps keep this deep
0:27
dive running and you actually gain access to extra episodes.
0:31
Yeah, and don't forget the weekly and monthly briefings on
0:33
Danish politics we do on there. Exactly.
0:35
The Patreon link is right down in the description, so let's
0:38
jump in. Let's do it.
0:39
When you picture global power, what's the first thing that
0:42
comes to mind? Oh, usually, you know, president
0:45
standing at podiums. Right.
0:47
Or prime ministers negotiating behind closed doors.
0:51
Or maybe massive multinational corporations leveraging just
0:54
like billions of dollars across continents.
0:57
Yeah, the classic heavyweights. We're so conditioned to view the
1:00
world as this rigid chess board of flags, militaries and state
1:04
borders. But today's deep dive into the
1:07
source material is about an entirely different kind of power
1:10
structure, one that's operating right in front of us.
1:13
An invisible web, basically. Exactly.
1:15
An invisible web of ordinary people, local activists, labor
1:19
unions and transnational networks.
1:21
And they are quietly bypassing those massive governments to
1:25
rewrite international law. Which is wild when you think
1:29
about. It it is it operates kind of
1:31
like the dark matter of the political universe.
1:34
Oh, I like that analogy. Right.
1:35
You can't always see it on a standard map.
1:38
Not the way you see a nation state with a capital city, but
1:41
its gravitational pull holds international movements
1:44
together. And it completely alters the
1:46
trajectory of global policies. Yes.
1:48
So our mission today is to unpack this dark matter and to
1:52
connect this to our previous episode in the summer series
1:55
where we talked about formal international organizations like
1:58
the UN and the WTO. Today is all about the informal
2:01
transnational civic actors. The folks operating outside the
2:05
official government buildings. Exactly.
2:07
So what actually is this global civil society?
2:11
Well, just like astrophysicist debating dark matter, political
2:15
theorists have spent decades arguing over what this space
2:18
actually is. And who controls it?
2:20
Right. And whether its influence is,
2:23
you know, fundamentally a force for human liberation or just a
2:27
subtle mechanism of control. Because we all know the basic
2:30
players right? Like we know what NGOs are.
2:33
We know about think tanks, faith-based groups, social
2:35
movements. Yeah, the usual suspects.
2:37
But looking at the sources, the underlying friction isn't really
2:41
about identifying who they are, it's about interpreting their
2:44
fundamental purpose. Exactly.
2:46
It really depends on the political lens you're wearing.
2:49
You can view a human rights NGO or an environmental think tank
2:53
in wildly different ways. So let's break that down.
2:55
The sources talk about four distinct theoretical lenses,
2:58
right? Yeah, 4 main ones, Yeah.
3:00
To understand how the world operates, you kind of have to
3:02
look through each of them. OK, lay them on me.
3:04
Let's start with the liberal perspective.
3:05
So in Liberal Democratic theory, global civil society is viewed
3:09
as the ultimate bottom up contributor to the legitimacy of
3:14
the international system. Basically the people holding
3:16
power to account. Exactly When a state signs an
3:19
international treaty on, say, climate change, the liberal
3:24
perspective argues that it's the environmental NGOs and the
3:27
citizen watchdogs who actually make sure the state keeps its
3:31
promises. They view this space as a
3:33
crucial pillar of global democracy.
3:36
Right, democracy in action. OK, I have to push back on that
3:39
entirely. 0 Go for it. If we are talking about
3:42
democracy, the core mechanism is electoral representation, right?
3:46
Voting. I don't go to a ballot box to
3:48
vote for the executive director of Greenpeace.
3:50
No, you don't. Or the head of Amnesty
3:52
International. Or the board members of some
3:54
massively funded think tank. These organizations are entirely
3:58
unelected. That is very true.
3:59
And some of them are funded by billionaires with highly
4:02
specific ideological agendas. So calling unelected groups with
4:07
massive lobbying power, democracy and action feels like
4:10
a stretch. You're not wrong to point that
4:12
out. It feels like an oligarchy
4:14
wearing a humanitarian mask, honestly.
4:16
And that right there is the definitive critique of the
4:19
liberal view. It brings us to a really crucial
4:22
distinction in the text, the difference between democratic
4:25
representation and democratic accountability.
4:27
OK, unpack that for me. So you're totally correct that
4:31
these groups lack traditional representation.
4:34
They don't have a mandate state from a popular vote.
4:36
But the liberal defense argues that democracy isn't merely
4:40
about holding elections, it's about checking centralized
4:44
power. Checking the power.
4:46
Think about the structure global institutions like the World Bank
4:49
or the World Trade Organization. They're already insulated from
4:53
direct democratic election. Yeah, nobody votes for the head
4:56
of the WTO either. Exactly.
4:58
So if civil society didn't exist, the only entities
5:01
monitoring those massive global institutions would be state
5:05
bureaucrats. I.
5:06
See Civil society provides democratic accountability by
5:09
acting as an independent alarm system.
5:11
They track corporate behavior, leaked documents, publish
5:14
independent data. And expose when the powerful
5:16
violate international norms. Right.
5:19
They may not be elected, yeah, but they enforce the
5:21
transparency that makes democracy actually function.
5:24
So they aren't the elected government, but they are sort of
5:27
like the immune system reacting to the government's infections.
5:30
That's a great way to put it. I can see the logic, even if the
5:33
funding structure still feel a bit murky to me.
5:37
But let's move to the second lens, the realist perspective.
5:40
I know they take a much darker view of all this.
5:42
Oh yeah, the realist perspective is purely cynical regarding
5:45
civil society. Well, realism argues that the
5:49
international system is basically an anarchy where
5:52
nations just compete for survival and dominance.
5:54
You call it E Dog. Exactly.
5:56
In this framework, global civil society doesn't even exist as an
6:00
independent, benevolent force. Right, they think it's fake.
6:03
Not fake, just instrumental. Realists interpret NGOs and
6:07
transnational networks as mere tools of statecraft.
6:11
Tools used by powerful states. Right to project soft power and
6:14
advance their own national interests abroad.
6:17
OK, walk us through the mechanics of that How does a
6:19
powerful state weaponize an ostensibly independent
6:22
organization? Think about the flow of capital
6:25
and this concept of democracy promotion.
6:28
A wealthy, powerful nation might allocate millions of dollars in
6:32
grants to fund, say, independent to journalism or human rights
6:36
groups in a rival nation. To a liberal that's supporting
6:40
civil society. But to a realist, that is a
6:43
calculated geopolitical strategy to destabilize a rival regime
6:47
from within. Wow.
6:49
So the powerful state uses the NGO to popularize ideas that
6:54
serve its own strategic interests.
6:55
Exactly. All operating under the guise of
6:58
an independent grassroots movement, the realist views
7:01
civil society as just another proxy battlefield for great
7:05
power competition. That makes a terrifying amount
7:08
of sense. If you want to undermine a
7:09
foreign government, you don't send in the military, you fund
7:12
an insurgency of ideas. Precisely through a network of
7:15
think tanks and local activists. OK, what about the Marxist
7:17
perspective? So the Marxist lens looks past
7:20
the state and focuses entirely on class and capital.
7:23
Naturally. Marxist don't see global civil
7:25
society as a tool for statecraft, they see it as a
7:27
political vanguard. Vanguard like Revelation.
7:31
Sort of. To understand this, we have to
7:34
look at cultural hegemony. The idea that the ruling class
7:37
maintains control by dominating the culture and moral norms, not
7:40
just the police and military. Yes, you've got it.
7:44
Marxists view civil society organizations as the battlefield
7:48
for this hegemony. So how do they view the NGO's?
7:52
Well, it's a split. On one hand, elite funded NGO's
7:55
might be seen as maintaining the capitalist status quo.
7:58
They just offer Band-Aid solutions to systemic
8:01
inequalities. To keep people from revolting.
8:04
Right, but on the other hand, radical social movements and
8:07
global labor unions are viewed as counter hegemonic forces.
8:10
Forces that exist to spread a different worldview and build
8:13
class consciousness. Exactly to fundamentally
8:15
challenge the dominant global capitalist order.
8:18
So the liberal sees a watchdog, the realist sees a geopolitical
8:22
weapon, and the Marxist sees either a capitalist pacifier or
8:26
a revolutionary vanguard. That covers the major Western
8:28
political theories, yeah. But the sources highlight 4th
8:31
lens, which kind of suggests this entire conversation might
8:34
be structurally flawed from the jump.
8:36
Right, the non western critique. This one is fascinating.
8:39
It really is. This perspective argues that the
8:41
very premise of our conversation, the idea that you
8:44
can carve human society into neat, distinct boxes labeled
8:47
state, market and civil society, is a uniquely Western post
8:52
enlightenment construct. Because it relies on the
8:54
historical separation of church and state and public versus
8:58
private spheres. Exactly.
8:59
And the critique suggests that this framework fails entirely
9:03
when you apply it to many societies in the global S, the
9:05
Middle East or parts of Asia. Places where the boundaries
9:08
between family, religion, the market and the state are just
9:12
deeply intertwined. Yeah.
9:14
So when Western institutions try to force this model onto non
9:18
Western countries, like demanding they develop a vibrant
9:22
civil society as a condition for receiving financial aid.
9:26
It backfires. Totally.
9:27
It often results in the creation of these artificial western
9:30
facing organizations that have zero actual connection to the
9:34
local culture. It's like they're building a a.
9:36
Hollywood Set. Yes, a Hollywood set of an NGO
9:39
just to satisfy a European donor.
9:41
That is a perfect way to describe it.
9:43
It's a massive structural flaw, but regardless of which lens you
9:47
look through, this dark matter has undeniably gained massive
9:51
influence over the last 40 years.
9:53
Undeniably. And the sources pinpoint the
9:55
late 20th century as this perfect storm for transnational
9:58
activism. It seems to center around a very
10:01
specific logistical shift, starting with the 1992 UN Earth
10:06
Summit in Rio de Janeiro. A Rio Earth summit, A massive
10:09
turning point. Why did a single environmental
10:12
conference become The Big Bang for global civil society?
10:16
To understand that, you have to look at the logistics of
10:18
activism before 1992. OK, set the scene.
10:22
Prior to Rio, you had thousands of brilliant, dedicated
10:25
environmental and social justice groups operating in complete
10:29
silos. Like, totally disconnected from
10:31
each other, yeah. An indigenous rights group in
10:33
Brazil was fighting local loggers.
10:35
An environmental group in Germany was fighting industrial
10:37
pollution. A scientific network in Japan
10:40
was studying ocean temperatures. And they were just communicating
10:42
via slow, expensive mail. Mail, or maybe occasional
10:46
academic journals. They were fighting localized
10:48
battles against isolated targets.
10:50
The friction of distance kept them fragmented.
10:53
Precisely. And the 1992 Earth Summit
10:56
shattered that friction because it wasn't just a meeting of
10:59
state leaders. It hosted a massive parallel NGO
11:03
forum known as the Global Forum. So it gave them a physical
11:07
space. A physical space where 10s of
11:09
thousands of activists, scientists and indigenous
11:13
leaders just converged. It forced them to sit in the
11:16
same rooms. And share their localized data.
11:18
Right. And they realized they were
11:19
fighting different tentacles of the exact same global phenomena.
11:23
Oh wow, so they forged common platforms?
11:26
They shared tactical playbooks, built personal relationships.
11:29
It birthed the modern transnational advocacy network.
11:33
They realized that to fight global capital and global
11:36
environmental degradation, they had to operate globally.
11:39
Exactly. But networking alone doesn't
11:41
grant you political power. You need leverage.
11:43
You do. And looking at the economic
11:45
history of the 1980s and 90s in the text, it seems like the
11:49
states themselves practically handed civil society that
11:52
leverage. Through privatization, Yes.
11:54
This is the second crucial element of the perfect storm.
11:57
Because the dominant economic ideology was neoliberalism.
12:00
Right champion by figures like Reagan and Thatcher in the West,
12:03
and enforced globally by the IMF and the World Bank, the core
12:07
tenet was that the state should shrink.
12:09
Sell off state owned enterprises.
12:12
Privatize Public Utilities. And most importantly, the state
12:15
dramatically reduced its role in providing social welfare.
12:18
They just retreated from the public sphere.
12:20
They systematically dismantled the public safety net.
12:23
Yeah. And this created a massive
12:24
vacuum and service provision. Especially in the developing
12:27
world, right where these structural adjustment programs
12:30
force governments to slash health and education budgets
12:34
just to pay off foreign debt. Yes.
12:36
And who stepped into that void? Civil society organizations.
12:40
This is a critical mechanical shift.
12:42
They went from being activists waving signs to being the actual
12:45
infrastructure of society. They really did.
12:48
I mean, if the government closes a rural health clinic to balance
12:51
its budget and Doctors Without Borders or Catholic Charity
12:55
opens a clinic in the same building, the NGO suddenly
12:59
possesses immense practical power.
13:02
Because they aren't just advocating anymore, they're
13:04
keeping the population alive. That embeds them so deeply into
13:07
the fabric of the community that the state eventually has to rely
13:11
on them. That is the exact mechanism they
13:14
subcontracted. The functions of the state NGOs
13:17
became these massive logistical operations, handling hundreds of
13:21
millions in development aid. Delivering food.
13:23
Running schools. Managing public health crises
13:27
and this granted them undeniable legitimacy.
13:30
I mean, when you are the one delivering the cholera vaccines,
13:33
you have a much stronger position to demand a seat at the
13:36
table when global health policies are being written.
13:39
Obviously, and while all of this physical and economic
13:42
restructuring was happening, the technological landscape
13:45
completely inverted. The Internet arrived.
13:48
The ultimate force multiplier, yeah.
13:50
We talked about the physical convergence at the Rio Summit.
13:53
The Internet digitized that convergence and made it
13:56
instantaneous. And permanent.
13:58
Let's look at how that actually changes the tactical reality on
14:01
the ground. Before the Internet,
14:03
coordinating A multinational protest required months of
14:06
planning, right? Expensive international phone
14:09
calls, Massive logistical overhead.
14:11
It was a nightmare to organize. But the Internet drops the cost
14:15
of global coordination to effectively 0.
14:18
Almost instantly. A local activist fighting a
14:21
mining corporation in Indonesia can instantly share internal
14:25
corporate memos with a legal NGO in London.
14:28
Who can then organize a media campaign with activists in New
14:31
York to pressure the corporation shareholders?
14:34
They bypass the slow state controlled media entirely.
14:38
A classic early example from the text is the Zapatista uprising
14:42
in Mexico in 1994. Oh, right.
14:44
Tell us about that. It was an indigenous rebellion
14:47
in the remote region of Chiapas against the North American Free
14:49
Trade Agreement and NAFTA. Right now, militarily, the
14:53
Mexican government could have crushed them in days.
14:55
Easily. But the Zapatistas utilized
14:57
early Internet networks to instantly broadcast their
15:00
manifestos and updates to sympathetic human rights groups
15:04
and student networks globally. So within days you had massive
15:08
protests erupting in front of Mexican embassies around the
15:10
world. Exactly.
15:11
The Internet allowed a localized, marginalized group to
15:15
instantly summon a protective global shield of civil society.
15:19
Which forced the Mexican government to halt a full
15:21
military offensive and actually enter negotiations.
15:24
It fundamentally shifted the balance of asymmetrical warfare.
15:28
The state had the guns, but the network had the information and
15:31
the speed. And this model of transnational
15:33
networking led to some staggering policy victories.
15:37
The sources highlight the Jubilee 2000 campaign and the
15:40
Ottawa Mine Ban Treaty. Both incredible examples.
15:43
Let's dig into the mechanics of those because they prove how
15:46
powerful this dark matter can be.
15:48
Start with Jubilee 2000. So Jubilee 2000 is just a master
15:52
class in transnational organizing.
15:54
Throughout the 80s and 90s, many post colonial nations in the
15:57
Global South were suffocating under unpayable sovereign debt.
16:00
Spending massive percentages of their GDP just to pay the
16:03
interest on loans to Western banks and the IMF.
16:06
Right is a highly technical, deeply entrenched financial
16:09
reality that most people in the developed world completely
16:13
ignored. Because it's boring.
16:15
How do you make the average citizen care about sovereign
16:17
debt restructuring? You utilize a massive, diverse
16:21
coalition and a brilliant framing strategy.
16:24
Jubilee 2000 brought together an incredibly disparate network.
16:28
Like who? Progressive labor unions,
16:30
Environmentalists. International Development NGOs
16:33
like Oxfam and, crucially, global faith-based
16:37
organizations. The faith-based groups.
16:40
Yes, they leaned into the biblical concept of the Jubilee
16:43
year, a time when all debts are forgiven and slaves are freed.
16:46
So they took a dry macroeconomic issue and reframed it as a
16:51
profound moral crisis. Exactly.
16:53
They mobilized rock stars like Bono to lobby politicians.
16:56
They organized a human chain of 70,000 people around the G8
17:00
summit in Birmingham in 1998. Wow.
17:03
And they gathered 24,000,000 signatures on a global petition.
17:05
They just overwhelmed the financial institutions with a
17:08
multi front assault of pop culture, moral authority, and
17:11
sheer demographic weight. And it worked.
17:13
They forced the IMF, the World Bank and creditor governments to
17:17
cancel over $100 billion of debt owed by the world's poorest
17:21
countries. That is staggering.
17:23
And the Ottawa mine ban followed a similar logic of bypassing
17:26
traditional gridlock, right? It did.
17:29
For decades, attempts to ban anti personnel land mines were
17:32
stalled in the UNS Conference on Disarmament because the rules
17:35
required consensus, meaning any single powerful state could veto
17:40
the ban. Oh, that's impossible.
17:42
Right. So the International Campaign to
17:43
Ban Landmines, which was a network of over 1000 NGO's,
17:47
realized the traditional system was designed to fail.
17:50
So they just left. They partnered with a group of
17:52
sympathetic states, led by Canada, to step completely
17:55
outside the UN machinery. They created a fast track
17:58
diplomatic process, the Ottawa Process.
18:00
Exactly where states could negotiate and sign a ban treaty
18:03
without the veto power holding them back.
18:05
They recognized that the architecture of global
18:07
governance was broken, so they simply built a new house.
18:10
They circumvented the bureaucratic maze of the UN.
18:14
And this leads directly to the core structural flaw that these
18:18
groups are constantly fighting against, which is the crisis of
18:21
transnational exclusion. Transnational exclusion.
18:24
OK, let's this. Is the fundamental friction in
18:27
the modern world order as the global economy integrated issues
18:31
became inherently transnational? Right.
18:33
A financial collapse in U.S. housing markets instantly
18:36
devastates economies in Europe and Asia.
18:38
Or carbon emissions from factories in China alter the
18:41
climate for farmers in sub-Saharan Africa.
18:44
Yeah, because the problems cross borders.
18:46
The governance of these problems had to cross borders.
18:49
And that led to the rise of massive global regulatory
18:52
bodies, the WTO, the IMF, the G8.
18:55
Exactly. But the people running these
18:57
organizations are utterly insulated from the consequences
19:00
of their decisions. I mean, if you're a bureaucrat
19:03
sitting in a boardroom in Geneva drafting an intellectual
19:06
property agreement for the WTO. You aren't the one who will
19:09
suddenly lose access to affordable generic HIV
19:12
medication in South Africa. Exactly, the people who suffer
19:15
the consequences have 0 mechanism to hold the decision
19:19
makers accountable. That is transnational exclusion
19:22
in the nutshell. In a domestic nation state, if
19:25
the government passes a terrible law, the citizens have
19:29
structural mechanisms to fight back.
19:31
They can vote the politicians out.
19:33
They can challenge the law in a nonpartisan constitutional
19:36
court. They can leverage parliamentary
19:38
oversight. But the global governance bodies
19:40
have none of those mechanisms. There are no global elections.
19:43
There is no Supreme Court of the WTO that a citizen can appeal
19:46
to. Which creates a massive, glaring
19:49
legitimacy gap. The global institutions wield
19:52
the power of a state, but lack the democratic legitimacy of a
19:55
state. And by the late 1990s and early
19:57
2000s, this legitimacy gap was causing intense friction.
20:01
Massive violent protests at WTO meetings in Seattle and G8
20:06
meetings in Genoa. The institutions realized that
20:09
if they didn't adapt, their entire model of global
20:11
governance would lose credibility.
20:13
So they were forced to seek out civil society to borrow their
20:16
grassroots legitimacy. They realized it was safer to
20:19
invite the protesters inside the tent than to have them
20:22
constantly trying to burn it down.
20:24
Precisely, the institutions began developing closer,
20:28
formalized relations with civil society organizations to show
20:32
that they were inclusive and attentive to demands coming from
20:35
below. The sources point to the UN Food
20:38
and Agriculture Organizations Committee on World Food Security
20:42
as a prime example of this. Yes, that's a huge one.
20:44
How does that look mechanically? Do the NGO's actually get a
20:47
vote? The structure is highly
20:49
deliberate. The committee underwent a major
20:52
reform to intentionally reserve seats for a wide variety of non
20:56
state actors. So they created specific
20:58
mechanisms for civil society organizations.
21:01
Social movements representing smallholder farmers, Indigenous
21:04
peoples, research centers and even private sector associations
21:07
to sit alongside government reps.
21:09
But wait, what's their actual power?
21:11
Now their role is predominantly consultative.
21:14
They do not have the final voting power to pass binding
21:17
resolutions. OK, so I am deeply skeptical of
21:19
this dynamic. I figured you might be.
21:21
It feels like a brilliant tactical maneuver by the global
21:24
elite. Think about it.
21:26
If I'm running a global institution and my policies are
21:29
deeply unpopular, I give an NGO a consultative seat, right?
21:33
I let them complain on the record.
21:35
Then I pass the exact same policy I was going to pass
21:37
anyway, but now I can stamp it with a seal of civil society
21:40
consultation. The institution launches its
21:43
reputation through the NGO. Exactly.
21:45
And worse, the architecture of these institutions is incredibly
21:49
fluid. The second civil society figures
21:52
out how to exert pressure on a specific body, the states just
21:56
restructure the organization to neutralize the threat.
21:58
You are describing the precise mechanism of institutional
22:01
evasion, and it happens constantly.
22:03
Give me an example from the text.
22:05
The classic example is the shift in global economic governance
22:08
following the 2008 financial crisis.
22:10
The move from the G8 to the G20 correct?
22:13
For decades, the primary form for coordinating the global
22:16
economy was the G8, a small, concentrated group of wealthy,
22:19
industrialized nations. And transnational activists had
22:23
mastered the art of engaging with the G8.
22:25
They knew how to pressure specific finance ministers,
22:28
coordinate counter summits, dominate the media narrative.
22:31
Their entire global network was optimized to target the G8.
22:36
Let's use an analogy here to understand how devastating that
22:39
shift was for them. It's exactly like corporate
22:42
restructuring designed to bust a labor union.
22:44
Oh, that's a good analogy. Right.
22:46
Imagine a union spends A decade organizing a massive auto
22:50
manufacturing plant. They finally get 100% union
22:53
density. They have leverage.
22:55
They threaten a strike. And what does management do?
22:58
Management simply responds by permanently closing the plant,
23:01
merging the operations into three different non union
23:04
facilities across different countries, and changing the name
23:07
of the parent company. Wow.
23:08
Yeah the union didn't lose the fight.
23:10
The battlefield itself was deleted.
23:12
That is exactly what happened in 2009, As the financial crisis
23:15
spiralled, the major powers elevated the G20 to be the
23:19
premier forum for international Economic Cooperation.
23:22
Which included the original G8 states but added emerging
23:25
economies like China, India, Saudi Arabia, Arabia and Brazil.
23:29
Which fundamentally changes the geography of power.
23:32
Entirely, suddenly, the activists carefully constructed
23:36
networks were obsolete. They were now dealing with a
23:38
much larger, more diffuse entity.
23:41
Furthermore, the G20 included powerful authoritarian states
23:45
where domestic civil society was heavily suppressed.
23:48
Making it incredibly difficult for activists to build the same
23:50
kind of coordinated cross-border pressure they had used against
23:54
the democratic states of the G. 8 The civil society networks
23:57
were left lagging behind. They had to completely rebuild
24:00
their institutional filters, adapt to new diplomatic
24:03
realities and find new pressure points.
24:05
The target didn't just move, its molecular structure changed.
24:09
Exactly. So if the system is inherently
24:11
designed to exclude them, to launder their legitimacy, or to
24:14
constantly shift out from under them, how do these grassroots
24:18
groups force their way in and actually create material change?
24:21
It's tough. How do you beat a system that
24:23
owns the board and writes the rules?
24:25
The sources outline a very specific three-step playbook
24:28
that civil society uses to alter the trajectory of global
24:31
politics. They do, and the core concept of
24:34
this playbook relies on understanding what civil society
24:37
actually produces. What do they produce?
24:39
Well, they don't merely act as problem solvers, like delivering
24:43
vaccines or managing refugee camps when the state fails.
24:46
Their most profound power lies in acting as problem generators.
24:50
Problem generators. That sounds counterintuitive.
24:53
Most people assume the goal of global politics is to solve
24:56
problems, not create them. But you cannot solve a problem
25:00
until society acknowledges that the problem exists.
25:04
For a situation to become a political issue, it must first
25:07
be defined as one. So they fight normative battles
25:09
over the fundamental interpretation of reality.
25:12
Yes, they take the situation that the world has accepted as a
25:14
natural, unchangeable fact of life, and they generate a
25:18
problem out of it, forcing it under the international agenda.
25:21
Which brings us to step one of the playbook conceptualization
25:24
and framing. What's the mechanism behind
25:26
this? This is the process of epistemic
25:29
disruption. A transnational network must
25:32
present an issue in such a way that the global public suddenly
25:35
perceives it as problematic, urgent and, crucially, soluble.
25:39
Soluble. That's the keyword.
25:41
Because if people believe a situation is a tragedy but
25:43
impossible to change, they will feel pity, but they will not
25:47
act. You have to convince them that
25:49
the architecture of reality can be altered.
25:51
The sources used the profound historical example of the
25:54
suffragette movement to illustrate this epistemic shift.
25:57
The fight for women's suffrage is the perfect anchor for this.
26:00
Because if you look at human history prior to the late 19th
26:04
and early 20th centuries, the subordinate role of women wasn't
26:08
widely debated as a political injustice by the ruling class.
26:11
No, it was viewed through the lens of theology, biology and
26:14
natural law. It was simply the way things
26:17
are. It wasn't a problem to be
26:19
solved, it was the baseline reality of human civilization.
26:23
Exactly. So the suffragettes didn't just
26:25
demand a vote, they had to completely dismantle the
26:28
prevailing epistemological framework of society.
26:32
They had to produce new knowledge.
26:33
They engaged in conceptualization, framing the
26:36
traditional subordinate role of women not as a natural
26:39
biological given, but as a constructed gross injustice.
26:43
And they paired that framing with a clear egalitarian
26:47
replacement, universal suffrage. They generated A profound
26:51
political problem out of a reality that had been
26:53
unquestioned for centuries. That framing, naming the
26:56
invisible cage and demanding the key is the mandatory first step.
27:00
Mandatory. Yes.
27:01
But framing alone is just philosophy.
27:04
I can frame a brilliant argument about global inequality in my
27:07
living room, but it won't change international law.
27:10
Sadly, no. That requires Step 2
27:12
dissemination, and this is where the friction gets intense
27:16
because the sources suggest they have to merge 2 incredibly
27:19
different modes of communication, science and
27:22
spectacle. Where dissemination is about
27:24
externalizing the new knowledge and forcing the public to
27:27
confront it. And you are correct about the
27:29
dual approach. First, activist networks must
27:32
secure cognitive legitimacy. By collaborating with
27:34
scientists, academics, legal experts.
27:37
Polishing white papers, conducting peer reviewed
27:39
environmental studies, gathering hard epidemiological data.
27:43
When civil society its claims through the language of science,
27:46
it becomes incredibly difficult for the state to dismiss them as
27:49
merely emotional or radical. But there is a massive friction
27:53
there. What's that?
27:54
Science is inherently slow, nuanced, filled with caveats,
27:59
and frankly boring to the general public.
28:02
You cannot mobilize a million people to March in the streets
28:06
based on a 400 page statistical analysis of atmospheric carbon
28:10
concentrations. Which is why the science must be
28:13
weaponized through public spectacle.
28:16
Dissemination requires capturing the public's imagination and
28:19
generating moral outrage. This is where mass protests,
28:23
civil disobedience, boycotts and highly publicized media stunts
28:26
come in. The network uses the scientific
28:29
data to prove to the policymakers that they are
28:32
factually correct. And they use the mass protests
28:35
to prove to the politicians that the public actually cares enough
28:38
to punish them if they don't act.
28:40
You need the rigor of the laboratory combined with the
28:42
theater of the street. Perfectly said.
28:44
OK, so you framed the problem. You've published the peer
28:47
reviewed data. You have 10,000 people marching
28:50
outside the UN head. But if I am a cynical UN
28:53
bureaucrat, I can look out the window, acknowledge the protest
28:57
and still completely ignore them.
28:58
I can simply claim those 10,000 people are a radical fringe
29:02
group. They do not represent the silent
29:04
majority of my country. And that is the ultimate
29:07
barrier, which brings us to Step 3, representation.
29:11
This addresses the fundamental crisis of legitimacy in civil
29:14
society. Yes, the network must answer the
29:17
most dangerous question posed by those in power.
29:20
Whose name do you speak? If you are an environmental NGO
29:24
based in London, heavily funded by European donors, and you are
29:28
demanding the cessation of logging in the Amazon
29:30
rainforest, who do you actually represent, right?
29:34
Do you represent the global climate?
29:36
Do you represent the indigenous tribes who live in the forest?
29:38
Or do you represent the economic interests of the global N,
29:41
trying to restrict the development of the Global South?
29:43
That is the exact vulnerability states will exploit to
29:46
delegitimize a movement. To successfully promote change,
29:50
the transnational network must gain a recognized role in the
29:53
public sphere as a rightful, authentic advocate of general
29:56
interests. They must successfully claim to
29:59
represent a broad affected constituency.
30:02
And that constituency must publicly validate that
30:05
representation. They have to build undeniable
30:08
coalitions that cross geographic and class lines.
30:11
Once they establish that undeniable representative
30:14
legitimacy, they acquire the political capital necessary to
30:17
sit at the negotiating table and force concessions.
30:20
Exactly. OK, so the mechanics of that
30:23
playbook are incredibly solid, but it assumes that the
30:26
activists operate in a system that at least allows for public
30:30
dissent. Yeah, a democratic system.
30:32
Right. If we think about how this
30:34
actually applies to the real world, we have to recognize that
30:37
many national governments will not tolerate this playbook.
30:40
They will aggressively suppress the framing, outlaw the
30:43
dissemination and imprison the representatives.
30:46
Happens all the time. So what is the tactical maneuver
30:48
when a domestic government completely shuts off the valve
30:51
of civil society? When the domestic Rd.
30:53
Is blocked, activists deploy A structural maneuver known as the
30:57
boomerang effect. The boomerang effect.
30:59
This model, famously conceptualized by political
31:02
scientists Margaret Keck and Katherine Sickink, explains how
31:05
local activists bypass the state entirely.
31:08
OK, give me a scenario. Imagine a scenario where an
31:11
authoritarian regime is violently displacing an
31:14
indigenous minority group to build a massive hydroelectric
31:18
dam. OK, the local activists try to
31:20
protest, but the state controls the media, bans public assembly,
31:25
and begins arresting the organizers.
31:27
The domestic political system is completely closed.
31:29
So the local group has 0 leverage against the state.
31:32
None. So they throw the issue outward
31:34
into the transnational arena. How do they do that?
31:37
The local activists smuggle data, photographs and
31:40
testimonies out of the country and share them with
31:42
international Ng OS based in democratic states, say Amnesty
31:46
International or Human Rights Watch in New York or London.
31:49
They shift the battlefield from the closed domestic sphere to
31:52
the open international sphere. Exactly.
31:55
Now the international Ng OS take over the dissemination.
31:57
They use their vast resources to launch global media campaigns.
32:01
They lobby their own Democratic governments like the US or the
32:04
UK, and they pressure international bodies like the
32:07
World Bank, which might be funding the dam.
32:10
So the issue is broadcast. Globally.
32:12
And then the pressure boomerangs back locally. the US government
32:15
threatens sanctions. The World Bank threatens to pull
32:18
the funding and international media creates a PR nightmare for
32:22
the authoritarian regime. The local activists lacked the
32:25
power to punch the regime directly, so they networked with
32:28
a global heavyweight who could punch downward on their behalf.
32:32
It is a brilliant bypass of state sovereignty.
32:34
You know, let's actually run a quick simulation here for the HF
32:37
Dis and Gymnasium students tuning in.
32:39
To make this super concrete, I want you to put on the hat of,
32:43
say, a representative for a Danish civil society
32:46
organization, maybe someone working on international aid or
32:50
human rights, like, say, the Danish Refugee Council or Mellon
32:54
Fochlitz Samberg down in Brussels.
32:56
Oh. OK.
32:57
Yeah, I can play that role. Awesome.
32:58
So as this Danish civil society organizer, how do you actually
33:02
try to influence, you know, the Danish government or the EU when
33:05
a crisis hits? Well, speaking as the NGO Rep,
33:10
first we do our homework. If there's a crisis in the
33:13
global S, we deploy our field researchers to gather verifiable
33:18
on the ground data. We don't just rely on what the
33:21
local authoritarian government is saying, we bring that hard
33:24
data back to Copenhagen or Brussels.
33:26
So that's the science part of the dissemination.
33:29
Exactly. Then we use our formalized
33:31
relationships. We sit down with officials from
33:34
Danada, the Danish International Development Agency, or members
33:37
of the folk getting the Danish Parliament.
33:39
We say, look, here is the proof of human rights abuses.
33:41
You cannot continue funding this specific state program.
33:45
And what if the Danish politicians just politely ignore
33:47
you? What if it's politically
33:48
inconvenient for them to act? Then we move to the spectacle.
33:51
We partner with Danish media outlets.
33:53
We organize public awareness campaigns across Nordic
33:56
universities, maybe stage a peaceful demonstration outside
34:00
Christiansburg. We generate public outrage so
34:03
that the voters start calling the representatives.
34:05
We make it politically costly for them to ignore us.
34:08
Fascinating. And how do you see your role in
34:11
relation to broader EU foreign policy?
34:14
Do you feel like you actually have power there?
34:16
Definitely, Denmark is a small state, but it has a strong
34:20
normative voice in the EU regarding human rights and green
34:23
transition. By influencing the Danish
34:25
foreign minister's stance, we can indirectly shape how the
34:28
entire EU votes. At the UN.
34:31
We act as a critical friend to the government.
34:34
We hold them to their own democratic values when they
34:36
might be tempted by, say, short term trade deals.
34:39
OK, stepping out of the simulation, that was great.
34:41
It really grounds the theory. Glad it helped.
34:44
But gaining this level of global influence, networking with
34:46
international heavyweights and wielding the power to threaten
34:49
the state's economy or an EU vote?
34:52
That places these organizations on a razor's edge.
34:55
It does. It's incredibly dangerous.
34:57
Once you prove you have power, the establishment will react.
35:01
The sources detail 2 extreme dangers that civil society faces
35:05
when engaging with mainstream politics, the trap of Co
35:08
optation and the violence of ostracization.
35:10
Right. Operating in the political
35:12
mainstream is inherently dangerous for a group whose
35:14
entire mandate is to challenge the status quo.
35:17
Let's examine the mechanics of Co optation first.
35:20
It's essentially a process of institutional capture.
35:23
Civil society organizations require three things to survive
35:27
financial resources, public recognition, and access to
35:30
policymakers. And governments and massive
35:32
international organizations control the tap for all three.
35:35
Exactly. But they do not distribute these
35:37
resources blindly. They use their financial
35:39
leverage to domesticate the threat.
35:41
Precisely. The institutional system is
35:43
incredibly savvy. Faced with thousands of Ng OS
35:46
demanding change, a government or a body like the EU will
35:49
selectively pick and choose to fund and legitimize only the
35:53
convenient groups. Convene in what way?
35:55
They look for organizations whose goals are already somewhat
35:58
aligned with the state's moderate reform agenda, or
36:02
groups that focus purely on technical service delivery
36:06
rather than radical political change.
36:08
So the state throws millions of dollars in grant money at a
36:11
moderate environmental NGO to run a recycling awareness
36:15
campaign, right? The NGO gets funding, they get
36:18
to hire staff, they get invited to the climate summit, and they
36:21
feel like they are winning. But the state is using them
36:24
instrumentally. The state points to the NGO NGO
36:27
and says, look, we are partnering with civil society,
36:30
we have massive grassroots support, all while continuing to
36:34
subsidize the fossil fuel industry.
36:36
The NGO has been hollowed out, they lose their independence,
36:38
they mute their criticism so they don't lose next year's
36:41
grant, and they become a subsidized PR wing for the
36:44
state. They have been entirely Co
36:46
opted. Who even see the rise of Geo
36:47
Goes? Wait, gun on goes.
36:49
What is that? Government organized non
36:51
governmental organization. That is an oxymoron.
36:53
It is. They are literal shell companies
36:56
set up by authoritarian regimes to mimic civil society.
37:00
At international conferences, they sit in the civil society
37:03
seats, but they just echo the government's talking points.
37:06
That is wild. It is the velvet glove of state
37:09
control. But if an organization refuses
37:12
the funding, refuses to moderate its demands, and takes a hard
37:16
oppositional stance against the material power structures of the
37:19
state, they face the iron fist, the danger of ostracization.
37:24
Yes, this is where the state utilizes its monopoly on
37:27
violence and law. If you genuinely threaten the
37:30
economic interests of a powerful state, they don't invite you to
37:33
a summit, they criminalize your existence.
37:35
We see this constantly. Right all the time.
37:38
Groups that demand radical redistribution of land or
37:40
environmental groups that physically block fossil fuel
37:42
infrastructure are systematically marginalized.
37:45
The state utilizes its legal apparatus to strip them of
37:48
legitimacy. The text mentions the post 911
37:51
security paradigm, right? Yes, many states weaponized
37:55
broad anti terrorism laws to target domestic civil society.
38:00
Environmental activists are charged with domestic
38:03
ecoterrorism. Indigenous land offenders are
38:06
labeled as violent insurgents or mafias.
38:09
By legally classifying these groups as criminals, the state
38:12
signals to the international community and the media that
38:15
these actors are outside the bounds of acceptable political
38:18
discourse. They are ostracized.
38:21
This leads to a profoundly unsettling historical
38:23
observation from the text. The very label of civil is
38:26
entirely ideological. Oh, absolute.
38:28
It is not an objective metric of human rights or morality.
38:31
It's a normative classification written by whoever currently
38:34
holds headromonic power. The word civil just means
38:37
acceptable to the current. And the sources point to the
38:40
historical treatment of Nelson Mandela and Yasser Arafat as the
38:44
ultimate proof of this shifting legitimacy.
38:47
It is the most striking irony of international relations.
38:50
If we look at the 1970s and 1980's, the African National
38:53
Congress led by Nelson Mandela was actively fighting to
38:56
dismantle the brutal state sponsored apartheid regime in
38:58
South Africa. Yet the mainstream global
39:01
powers, including the United States and the United Kingdom,
39:04
officially designated Mandela and the ANC as terrorists.
39:08
They were the definition of ostracized.
39:10
They were criminalized for using armed resistance against a
39:13
violent state. Similarly, Yasser Arafat and the
39:16
Palestine Liberation Organization were universally
39:19
condemned by Western powers as a criminal terrorist organization.
39:23
But the geopolitical tectonic plates shifted.
39:26
The Cold War ended. The moral horror of apartheid
39:29
became impossible for the West to defend.
39:31
And as the ideological needs of the global hegemony changed, the
39:35
classification of these men completely inverted.
39:37
The terrorists were rebranded as the ultimate statesman.
39:41
Both Mandela and Arafat were eventually awarded the Nobel
39:44
Peace Prize. They went from being the
39:46
absolute targets of state violence to the celebrated
39:49
pillars of global civil society. It proves that the lines of
39:52
global legitimacy are drawn in sand.
39:55
An organization considered an existential threat to the state
39:58
in one decade can be championed as the vanguard of human rights
40:01
in the next simply because the predominant ideology shifted.
40:04
The label of civil society is a battleground in itself.
40:08
It really is. OK, we have unpacked a massive
40:10
amount of theory. We've examined the structural
40:13
lenses, the historical perfect storm of the 90's, the crisis of
40:17
transnational exclusion, the mechanical playbook of framing
40:21
and the boomerang effect, and the existential dangers of
40:25
cooptation and criminalization. That's a lot of ground covered.
40:28
To see how every single one of these gears turns together in a
40:31
real world scenario, the sources provide a detailed case study.
40:36
And it is arguably one of the most successful methodical civil
40:39
society campaigns of the modern era.
40:42
The push for a global moratorium on the death penalty.
40:44
Yes, this campaign perfectly illustrates the architecture of
40:48
a transnational network moving from local mobilization to
40:51
global norm creation. It didn't begin with a sudden
40:54
massive vote at the UN. It followed A rigorous multi
40:58
stage process of normative promotion that utilized the
41:01
exact playbook we just discussed.
41:03
Let's trace the mechanics of the campaign.
41:04
Where does the origin point start and how does it scale?
41:07
The initial spark occurred in a highly specific national
41:10
context. In this case, the mobilization
41:12
began in Italy. In the mid 1990s, organizations
41:16
like the Community of Santa Gidio and Hands Off Cain began
41:19
building a strong domestic foundation.
41:22
They lobbied the Italian government, engaged the public
41:25
and secured domestic political consensus.
41:27
But they knew that abolishing the death penalty in Italy did
41:30
nothing for the thousands of people facing execution
41:33
globally. Right, they had to trigger the
41:35
boomerang effect and scale upward.
41:38
So they went transnational. They built the network.
41:40
They utilized the new communication technologies and
41:43
the post Cold War openness to network with massive
41:47
international heavyweights, specifically Amnesty
41:50
International, which had vast resources and global reach.
41:53
They merged their localized passion with Amnesty's
41:56
transnational logistical infrastructure.
41:58
Exactly. They formed the World Coalition
42:00
Against the Death Penalty. Once the network was globalized,
42:03
they shifted to leverage politics.
42:04
Systematically targeting specific states that were
42:07
resistant to the idea. Using diplomatic pressure,
42:10
public shaming and leveraging economic ties to persuade them
42:14
to back the cause. Finally, having built an
42:17
undeniable multinational coalition, they took the fight
42:20
directly to the core machinery of global governance, the United
42:24
Nations General Assembly. But the UN General Assembly is a
42:27
brutal diplomatic arena. Getting 193 nations to agree on
42:32
anything, let alone restricting their own sovereign right to
42:35
execute prisoners, requires a master class in framing it.
42:38
Really does. The sources detail the exact
42:40
tactics they used which they termed humanitarian diplomacy.
42:45
They deployed A2 pronged attack, reason based framing and emotion
42:49
based framing. Let's breakdown the logic trap
42:51
of reason based framing first. So reason based framing targets
42:54
the legal and diplomatic architecture of the state.
42:57
The activists didn't just argue that the death penalty was bad.
42:59
That's too simple. Right.
43:01
They persuasively attached the issue to other universally
43:03
accepted international human rights agendas.
43:06
They utilize international law against itself.
43:08
They argued before the UN that if the international community
43:11
has already ratified the Universal Declaration of Human
43:14
Rights, which guarantees the fundamental right to life, and
43:18
if the community universally condemns torture as a violation
43:22
of international law, then logically state sponsored
43:26
execution must be recognized as the ultimate violation of those
43:30
pre-existing commitments. That's brilliant.
43:32
They built a rigorous, rational legal framework.
43:36
They forced states into a corner where opposing the moratorium
43:39
meant contradicting their other human rights treaties.
43:42
They use the state's own legal architecture against it.
43:45
But reason alone rarely secures the votes of cynical diplomats.
43:49
You need moral velocity and that is where the emotion based
43:52
framing provided the overwhelming pressure.
43:55
Exactly. While the lawyers argue the
43:57
statutes, the civil society networks generated profound
44:00
human empathy. Bypass passing the sterile
44:02
statistics of the criminal justice system.
44:04
By disseminating powerful personal narratives, they
44:07
brought exonerated death row inmates, people who were hours
44:10
away from being executed for crimes they didn't commit, to
44:13
speak directly to UN delegates in the global media.
44:16
They shared the agonizing accounts of the families of
44:19
those on death row and even the testimonies of former
44:21
executioners who were psychologically destroyed by
44:24
their jobs. They gave the abstract legal
44:26
debate a deeply human, undeniable face.
44:29
And the combination of the airtight legal trap and the
44:32
overwhelming moral empathy worked.
44:34
The sheer diplomatic grind culminated in a historic moment.
44:37
In 2007, the UN General Assembly passed a resolution calling for
44:42
a global moratorium on capital punishment.
44:45
It is an incredibly empowering case study.
44:48
We began this deep dive discussing the terrifying,
44:50
overwhelming power of nation states, militaries, and
44:54
multinational corporations. But the mechanics of this
44:57
campaign prove that organized citizens, armed with nothing but
45:00
strategy, legal reasoning and human empathy can literally
45:03
rewire the operating system of international human rights.
45:07
They altered the behavior of sovereign states without firing
45:10
a weapon or winning a single election.
45:12
It is an undeniable triumph of the global civil society model.
45:15
However, as we synthesize the total impact of this dark matter
45:19
over the last few decades, the sources require us to maintain a
45:22
critical, objective view. Yes, we have to look at the
45:24
whole picture. Because while the victories are
45:26
profound, the overall impact of global civil society on the
45:31
international system has been both modest and structurally
45:35
uneven. Let's summarize the undeniable
45:37
structural victories first, though.
45:39
Let's do a quick recap. 3 key takeaways for our listeners,
45:42
especially the students. What is the first major insight?
45:46
Number one, what global civil society is and isn't.
45:50
It is not just Ng OS delivering aid.
45:53
It is a complex web of problem generators that define global
45:57
norms and act as the conscience of the international system,
46:00
demanding transparency from institutions that operate behind
46:03
closed doors. Excellent take away 2.
46:06
How it complements and challenges states.
46:08
It steps in to provide services when the state retreats, but it
46:11
also uses tools like the boomerang effect to bypass
46:14
authoritarian governments holding sovereign states
46:16
accountable to international law.
46:18
And take away 3. Why should students and
46:20
practitioners pay attention to this in foreign policy debates?
46:23
Because of the lingering imbalance, this is crucial.
46:27
Transnational activism is still overwhelmingly dominated by
46:31
Western organizations based in New York, Geneva, and Brussels.
46:36
This means the agendas they pursue are heavily influenced by
46:39
Northern perspectives, leaving the global S to implement rather
46:43
than lead the strategic agenda. Which means entire regions of
46:47
the globe remains socially disconnected.
46:49
Islands, vast areas in Russia, China, parts of the Middle East
46:53
and significant portions of Africa remain isolated from this
46:56
transnational web, often due to severe state suppression.
47:00
Exactly. The political results achieved
47:02
by global civil society exhibit A severe geopolitical imbalance.
47:07
The systems designed to fight structural inequality must
47:10
constantly guard against replicating it within their own
47:12
ranks. A very necessary warning.
47:14
Before we wrap up, just a quick reminder that if you found this
47:16
deep dive valuable, the Patreon link is in the description.
47:19
You can get those weekly and monthly monthly Danish politics
47:22
briefings and support the show. We really appreciate the
47:24
support. And as we bring this deep dive
47:26
to a close, I want to leave you with a final theoretical
47:29
provocation, a concept that builds on the mechanics we've
47:32
explored today, but looks toward an incredibly uncertain future.
47:36
Oh, I know where you're going with this.
47:37
We've established that the entire playbook of civil
47:40
society, from the Rio Earth Summit to the Jubilee 2000
47:43
protests, has relied on human convergence.
47:47
It relies on shared physical spaces, the slow building of
47:50
human trust and the profound power of human empathy, like the
47:54
stories of the exonerated death row inmates.
47:56
The human element, the friction of human organizing, has been
48:00
the absolute core of the structural playbook.
48:02
So what happens to global civil society when we remove the human
48:06
friction? We are entering the age of
48:07
artificial intelligence and decentralized autonomous
48:10
Organizations, or Daos, right? If an algorithmic network can
48:13
organize capital globally via blockchain, completely bypassing
48:17
the international banking system, And if generative AI can
48:20
synthesize data, draft legal frameworks, and deploy millions
48:24
of persuasive, hyper targeted narratives at a million times
48:27
the speed of a human NGO, what happens to the concept of civil
48:31
society? It's a daunting question.
48:33
Will the next great push for global human rights be led by
48:37
humans holding signs in the street, negotiating in
48:41
conference halls? Or will it be led by
48:43
decentralized algorithmic swarms operating entirely in the
48:47
digital ether, completely immune to the cooptation or
48:51
ostracization of any nation state?
48:55
It fundamentally questions whether the dark matter of
48:58
global politics will remain human or if the mechanism of
49:02
accountability itself will become automated.
49:04
And as we observe this invisible web of power quietly rewriting
49:08
the rules of our world, we have to look closely at the network
49:11
and wonder exactly who or what will be pulling the strings
49:15
tomorrow. It's something to definitely
49:16
Mull over. For sure, thanks for joining us
49:19
for this deep dive. Make sure you follow the show
49:21
and if you enjoyed it, please write it five stars so it can
49:23
reach even more people Next time.
49:25
On the summer series, we'll be tackling global political
49:28
economy. You won't want to miss it.
49:30
See you then. This has been diplomacy and
49:33
international Relations Production and credits are in
49:35
the show notes. Thanks for listening.