Don’t fear the robots
"The robots aren't going to take over, or even destroy jobs," says CDDRL's Jerry Kaplan. Read the article here.
"The robots aren't going to take over, or even destroy jobs," says CDDRL's Jerry Kaplan. Read the article here.
CISAC co-director Amy Zegart wrote this July 11 essay in The Atlantic on what the Donald Trump Jr. emails mean:
Line by ugly line, Donald J. Trump Jr.’s emails with British-born former tabloid reporter and Russian intermediary Rob Goldstone are now plastered on The New York Times website. They reveal an astounding set of communications. Goldstone promises incriminating information about Hillary Clinton that could be used in the campaign—with the Kremlin’s backing. Junior’s response should have been to speed dial the FBI. Instead, he writes three little words with big, big consequences: “I love it.”
It’s quite a turn for the First Son. Just a few months ago, The New York Times gave him a fawning spread replete with woodsy photos. Now his association with dirt doesn’t look quite so good.
My three big takeaways from this breaking story:
1) The key word in The New York Times piece is “flurry.” There isn’t one email exchange. There are many. Trump Jr.’s email “dump” will not be the end of the story. Instead, as Churchill once said, it’s just the end of the beginning. Investigators and journalists will be following the email trail.
2) Even the emails released so far paint a damning portrait. The “we didn’t know better, we’re just amateurs” defense with respect to foreign policy—which the White House has been using to this point—will not hold up. Campaign chairman Paul Manafort attended the now-infamous June 9, 2016 meeting with Kremlin-connected lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya. Manafort is no neophyte in this world. He has worked on multiple Republican presidential campaigns over decades. What’s more, the red line, whether it’s a legal or political one, is: “Thou shalt not work with foreign powers to gain advantage in a U.S. election.” As former FBI director Jim Comey would put it, there is no fuzz on this whatsoever. Even if the foreign power involved were the Brits and not the Russians, meeting with a foreign government to get opposition dirt for a U.S. presidential election is wrong and probably illegal.
3) It is telling that every new piece of hard information major newspapers have reported recently about the Russian meddling in the 2016 election—every single one—supports the Intelligence Community’s conclusions about it. In January, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence released the community's assessment that “Russian president Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the U.S. presidential election,” and that he and his government “aspired to help president-elect Trump's election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton.” The reporting has yet to implicate Putin himself, but Goldstone’s email citing a Russian official’s offer to “provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia,” as part of “Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump” is the clearest public evidence yet of the IC’s conclusion. And the emails were released by Trump Jr. himself—right before The New York Times posted them.
We need to stop saying of the intelligence community—as Donald Trump Sr. has encouraged—“These are the people who brought us Iraq WMD” and start saying, “These are the same people who found bin Laden.” In fact, Donald Trump Jr. proudly displays an American flag signed by members of SEAL Team Six—the unit that took out bin Laden—in his office. Junior should have thought harder about the kind of intel that helped the SEALs succeed—and what it might mean for his father.
Amy Zegart is co-director of the Center for International Security and Cooperation and Professor of Political Science, by courtesy. She is also the Davies Family Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution and directs the Cyber Policy Program. She is a contributing editor to The Atlantic.
On July 7, the William J. Perry Project issued the following statement from CISAC's William J. Perry regarding the adoption of the UN Treaty to Prohibit Nuclear Weapons, which was approved by the UN on the same day:
"The new UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons is an important step towards delegitimizing nuclear war as an acceptable risk of modern civilization. Though the treaty will not have the power to eliminate existing nuclear weapons, it provides a vision of a safer world, one that will require great purpose, persistence, and patience to make a reality. Nuclear catastrophe is one of the greatest existential threats facing society today, and we must dream in equal measure in order to imagine a world without these terrible weapons."
The UN treaty places a strong moral imperative against possessing nuclear weapons and gives a voice to some 130 non-nuclear weapons states who are equally affected by the existential risk of nuclear weapons. There is no one solution to this global threat, and there is much more work to be done beyond this treaty to reduce this risk. I call on nuclear-armed states to step up their participation in the fight against the nuclear threat by securing the eight remaining ratifications to enact the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, extending the New START agreement, continuing the critical work of the Nuclear Security Summits, and avoiding the unnecessary risk posed by introducing destabilizing new nuclear weapons. My hope is that this treaty will mark a sea change towards global support for the abolition of nuclear weapons. This global threat requires unified global action."
Read more about the treaty here.
William J. Perry, a former U.S. Secretary of Defense, recently joined other nuclear and diplomatic experts in writing a letter to President Trump urging diplomatic talks with North Korea; wrote a Politico op-ed on how to make a deal with North Korea; and delivered the 2017 Barnett-Oksenberg Lecture on issues between China and the United States. Perry is the director of the Preventive Defense Project at CISAC.
Rising powers often seek to reshape the world order, triggering confrontations with those who seek to defend the status quo. In recent years, as international institutions have grown in prevalence and influence, they have increasingly become central arenas for international contestation. Phillip Y. Lipscy examines how international institutions evolve as countries seek to renegotiate the international order. He offers a new theory of institutional change and explains why some institutions change flexibly while others successfully resist or fall to the wayside. The book uses a wealth of empirical evidence - quantitative and qualitative - to evaluate the theory from international organizations such as the International Monetary Fund, World Bank, European Union, League of Nations, United Nations, the International Telecommunications Satellite Organization, and Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers. The book will be of particular interest to scholars interested in the historical and contemporary diplomacy of the United States, Japan, and China.
The CISAC Fellowship Program is training and educating the next generation of thought leaders and policy makers in international security.
Our fellows spend the academic year engaged in research and writing, and participate in seminars and collaborate with faculty and researchers. Every summer, many complete their fellowships and move on to new career endeavors. For the 2016-17 academic year, CISAC hosted 21 fellows (the center has 399 former fellows).
Some of our fellows, in their own words, explain what they will be doing next:
Having spent two years as a nuclear security postdoctoral fellow at CISAC, I return to my home institution, the Julius-Maximilians-University of Würzburg, Germany. As a historian of late modern history, I do so in great gratitude for an excellent and abundantly rich scholarly experience at Stanford. Once I am back in Germany, I will publish my first book early next year, the manuscript of which I finalized at CISAC. I will also proceed to publish the manuscript of my second book, which I wrote entirely at Stanford. And I will move towards the pursuit of the so-called “habilitation,” which is required (in Germany) to qualify for a position as a full professor in my home country.
It is not easy to put into a few words how much my CISAC experience has helped me with making progress at a crucial juncture of my career. CISAC fellowships offered me a transformative opportunity to make my research more rigorous, to think more creatively and more carefully, to appreciate interdisciplinary approaches in addressing complex problems, to improve my teaching abilities, and to establish relationships with leading scholars and specialists, which I hope will be long-lasting ties to communities at CISAC, Stanford, and the U.S.
I have a tenured position at my institute in Hungary so I will move home in August and get back to teaching and research.
My CISAC experience was amazing, from the beginning I felt that I was part of a community here. I got much useful feedback on my research, and I really feel that my work improved in quality and I became a better researcher. I learned a lot about how to present my ideas so that it would be relevant for policy makers, and my fellowship opened new doors for me. I am grateful for this opportunity, and I am certain that I will continue to be an active member of the CISAC community wherever I go.
During the 2017-2018 academic year, I will remain at CISAC. As a social sciences postdoctoral fellow, I will study how international actors and third parties utilize diplomacy to manage and resolve interstate conflicts. This builds upon my broader research agenda, which uses new quantitative data and statistical methods to analyze the strategic logic of negotiations during war.
Given that I came from a predominantly social science background, my year at CISAC was invaluable in helping me to understand the policymaking world and how my research could more effectively communicate the technicalities of my research to a broader informed yet general audience. I also learned about what kinds of pressing questions concern policymakers, which I will use to shape my future work. I look forward to meeting another group of diverse and knowledgeable individuals next year.
This fall, I will return to my regular life at Boston College, where I am an associate professor of political science and international studies. In the upcoming academic year, I will continue to work on the research I worked on at CISAC on new weapons and the laws and norms of war and the nuclear weapons portion of my project in particular. I will also teach two sections of the Introduction to International Studies for BC undergraduates and the Field Seminar in International Politics for BC graduate students. In the fall, I also look forward to being affiliated with the Security Studies Program at MIT.
CISAC has been a tremendous source of academic support for my research. Not only has it given me time and resources to do research and write, but it has also introduced me to new colleagues, who have generously provided insights and expertise that have improved that research. It also made it possible for me to attend events like a conference on New Dilemmas in Ethics, Technology, and War at the Air Force Academy in April 2017, the Military Immersion Map Exercise at RAND in May 2017, and the UN Conference to Negotiate a Legally Binding Instrument to Prohibit Nuclear Weapons in June 2017.
These experiences, as well as all of the opportunities to attend events and meet people at CISAC itself, will continue to shape how I think about my research and teaching and have helped me build new professional networks for the long term.
In the next academic year, I will be a postdoc in Stanford’s Department of Geological Sciences. There, I will continue my work on the role of geologic disposal (burial) of weapons plutonium in the global arms control and disarmament regimes. I will also conduct scientific research on the manner in which nuclear materials change in response to their environments. For example, I am currently starting a project in which I attempt to determine the conditions in which uranium-bearing materials have been stored by studying the oxidation and hydration of their surfaces. This could help to determine the provenance of smuggled uranium that has been interdicted by law enforcement or security authorities.
My fellowship at CISAC has allowed me to translate my scientific skills to the policy realm, and to greatly expand the impact of my work. I have long been interested in science policy, but lacked the resources, connections, and experience necessary to effectively analyze critical issues and to communicate the results to both scholarly and governmental audiences. Through interactions with CISAC’s resident policy experts, I learned about the role that technical analysis can play in the policymaking process.
While my transition to policy-relevant work is ongoing, my efforts have already yielded some impact on international policy, with an Australian Royal Commission report citing my work on quantifying the long-term risks associated with the burial of nuclear materials. I expect that the valuable experience and mentorship I received over the course of my CISAC fellowship will continue to inform and enhance my work at the interface of nuclear science and policy.
I will become the Jill Hopper Memorial Fellow at Georgetown University and will be teaching a course, the History and Politics of Nuclear Proliferation, in spring 2018. From August this year, I will be a visiting scholar at the Institute for Security and Conflict Studies at George Washington University. CISAC provided me with amazing resources. I loved my intellectually stimulating meetings with my mentor Scott Sagan and other amazing scholars who opened their office doors to me. CISAC is an ‘intellectual candy store.’ I am grateful to everyone there for creating such a special environment.
Starting July 1, I will be a postdoctoral fellow at Harvard University's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs where I will keep working on my research about technology and international security.
The CISAC experience helped my career in three main ways. First, CISAC is a fantastic academic environment where young researchers can deal with leading scholars in a plurality of fields: the constant interactions between different views and expertise represent a unique source of intellectual growth that has helped me develop new ideas and identify new questions in my field.
Second, CISAC's activities and professional growth initiatives help fellows gain the skills and acquire the knowledge to succeed not only as an academic but also, more broadly, as public intellectual. CISAC has helped me improve my understanding of policy dynamics as well as my capacity to present to non-experts the findings of my research. Third, CISAC's "be-good" motto combined with its strong mentorship provides fellows with a perfect working environment.
This fall, I will be starting my position as a systems research analyst at Sandia National Lab. For my research here at CISAC, I have taken a broad, holistic look at the proliferation impact of the thorium fuel cycle. Therefore, CISAC has given me valuable experience in thinking through difficult problems using a systematic, top-down approach, which is a skill that I will take with me to my next position.
Accepting a postdoctoral fellowship with CISAC was an unconventional career move for me, personally. I got my doctorate in chemistry from UC Berkeley in 2016. Most of my peers in the chemistry department went on to conduct postdoctoral research at another university, a national lab, or in industry. A few made the leap into science policy fellowships in Washington, D.C. For me, CISAC provided a happy compromise between these two options. It allowed me the freedom to continue conducting technical research (albeit outside the chemistry lab), while still exploring the policy implications of my research.
My experience at CISAC helped my career progression in two ways. First, through targeted workshops, reading groups, and less formal daily interactions, CISAC provided me with the opportunity to view my research and interests from a different lens, that of the policymaker. It was interesting to see my fellow fellows, of all academic backgrounds, struggling with how to translate the finer points of their academic research into policy-relevant media. I learned a lot from their experiences and challenges. The second way that CISAC has helped my career progression was through exposure to others who have done this transition successfully. This was achieved through fantastic seminar series, as well as through daily interaction with faculty and fellows here at CISAC. Speaking with people who have worked at high levels in Washington, D.C. made me realize that I would prefer to continue doing policy-relevant academic and technical research in nuclear science, rather than to transition to policy completely.
Fellowship information
Current fellowship opportunities at CISAC include:
• Social Sciences or Humanities International Security Fellowship
• Natural Sciences or Engineering International Security Fellowship
• Cybersecurity and International Security Fellowship
• Law and International Security Fellowship
• William J. Perry Fellowship in International Security
For more information about CISAC fellowships, email cisacfellowship@stanford.edu.
Fewer girls in low-and-middle-income countries finish secondary school, resulting in poorer health and economic outcomes for their own children — and perpetuating the vicious cycle of gender inequality worldwide.
According to The World Bank, in Sub-Saharan and South Asia, boys are 1.5 times more likely to complete secondary education than girls. Many are forced to stay at home and help their mothers with housework and childcare, particularly if a younger sibling is sick.
Yet the potential gains from increased participation of women in the global workforce over the next decade are estimated at $12 trillion. Studies show that women’s equal participation in the workforce could boost some countries’ GDP by up to 20 percent.
Stanford Health Policy’s Marcella Alsan, a physician and economist, argues in a new study in the journal Pediatrics, that identifying contributors to education disparities and making investments in early childhood health could significantly advance global health and development.
“There are so many advantages to girls staying in school,” Alsan, an assistant professor of medicine at Stanford Medicine, said in an interview. “For one thing, the longer they’re in school, the less likely they are to become young mothers or contract HIV. And the more educated the mother, their own children have better chances of survival.”
So what are some of the biggest barriers to girls completing secondary school in less developed countries?
Alsan and her co-authors found the gender gap is compounded by illness among young children in the household since adolescent girls are often tasked with childcare and domestic chores. The problem is exacerbated if the mother works outside the household.
Follow the Numbers
Along with SHP research data analyst Anlu Xing, Alsan and her team used Demographic and Health Surveys on 41,821 households in 38 low-and-middle-income countries. The surveys asked about illnesses in children under 5 in the last two weeks, and then asked the adolescent boys and girls if they had been in school in the same period.
As expected, more girls remained at home than boys. When no young children in the household are ill, adolescent girls are on average 6 percent less likely to attend school than adolescent boys within the same household.
But the gap increases to 7.8 percent if the household reports one illness episode among an under-5 child, and up to 8.5 percent if there are two or more episodes of illness.
In other words, the authors write, “The gender gap in adolescent school attendance increased by around 50 percent when young children in the household became ill.”
The education gap between adolescent boys and girls jumps to 10.06 percent if the younger child has two or more episodes of illness — and the mother is working outside the home or in the fields.
“Policies that strengthen family and community supports for challenges such as sick child care will prove essential,” the authors write, “particularly as women move increasingly into the workforce outside the home.”
Alsan’s co-authors are Eran Bendavid, assistant professor of medicine and core faculty member at Stanford Health Policy; Gary Darmstadt, a professor of pediatrics and associate dean for maternal and child health at Stanford Medicine; and Paul Wise, another core faculty member at SHP and professor of pediatrics.
Vaccines Also Key
Alsan and her team also examined data on the gender gap in adolescent education in association with national vaccine rates, using the same country-year surveys.
They found that in countries where about 70 percent of all the boys and girls had the same series of eight vaccines — including polio, diphtheria, tetanus and measles — the gender gap in education approaches zero.
“We hypothesize that countries with high rates of childhood vaccination will experience lower rates of young child illness, thereby decreasing the need for adolescent girls’ to devote time to caring for sick children,” the authors write.
Given the long-term benefits of secondary school for women’s health and economic outcomes, the authors believe their study underscores the societal benefits of keeping girls in school. A combination of vaccines and early childhood interventions to keep toddlers healthy and their older sisters in school are paramount.
“The international community agrees that educating girls through secondary school has plenty of societal benefits — we show that health interventions targeting young kids are an important way to do just that,” says Alsan. “Not only the targeted little kids benefit but also their older sisters — a double dividend.”
Congratulations to CISAC honors program Class of 2017! On June 16, students in the CISAC Interschool Honors Program in International Studies graduated in a conferral of honors ceremony on the front lawn of Encina Hall.
We are proud to add our 12 new graduates to our expanding list of graduates from the program since it began in 2001. In total, CISAC has 193 alumni in honors. For the students, their graduation reflects an intellectual adventure that included a two-week honors college program in Washington D.C., tours of government agencies, meetings with influential policy makers, and weekly seminars with CISAC faculty. Honors students are also required to research and complete an original thesis on an important national security issue.
The 2017 program was co-directed by Martha Crenshaw and Chip Blacker. Crenshaw said, "We stress hard work, independent thinking, intellectual honesty, and courtesy and civility. Our students are critical without being disrespectful, open to new ideas and ways of thinking, and self-made experts in the subjects they have chosen."
In his remarks, Blacker said several features of the CISAC program make it distinctive. "These include the diversity of the disciplines represented by the student's major fields of study, which range this year from political science, history and international relations, on the one hand, to computer science, energy systems engineering, and materials science and engineering, on the other. ..."
While each project is different, "they all share the unifying and overarching themes of advancing the international security agenda and having value and utility in policy terms," Blacker said. The program, he added, places a "premium on knowledge of the real world, and of the art and science of policymaking in particular, coupled with intensive training in research and writing."
During the conferral ceremony, CISAC honors teaching assistant Shiri Krebs read statements from the students' thesis advisors regarding their final papers. Read below for those comments:
Ken-Ben ChaoA New Journey to the West: The Shanghai Cooperation Organization and Chinese Foreign Policy
Thesis Advisor: Coit. D. Blacker
"What is the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and, to be blunt, why should we care? In essence, this is the question that Ben Chao seeks to answer in this thoughtful, comprehensive and well-written senior thesis. Ben’s answer, like the question, comes in two parts. The Shanghai Cooperation Organization, he tells us, is neither an emerging alliance nor a diplomatic “talk shop.” Rather, it has been – and it continues to be – a subtle instrument of Chinese foreign policy that has waxed and waned in importance since its creation in 2001 depending on Beijing’s assessment of the international security environment. In Ben’s judgment, this is reason enough for us to care and for us to pay attention. Ben’s thesis is a superior piece of scholarship that tells us a great deal about something most of us know little about and does so in an informed and wonderfully entertaining way."
When Things Are Not What They Seem: Explaining the Success of Countering Violent Extremism in Los Angeles
Thesis Advisor: Martha Crenshaw
"A policy of countering violent extremism and radicalization, known as “CVE,” was a hallmark of the Obama Administration as it struggled to respond to the threat of “homegrown” jihadist terrorism. But what is CVE? And is it effective? These questions motivated Marina Elmore’s fascinating inquiry into the apparent success of the Los Angeles program, highly praised as a model on the national level. Marina probed deeply into the case to discover that special circumstances predetermined the outcome and that the model was not easily transferable to other cities. For one thing, Los Angeles did not actually face a challenge of violent extremism because it lacked a population susceptible to the appeal of jihadist propaganda. For another, the city had already implemented most of the newly prescribed CVE “best practices,” such as community policing, in efforts to solve earlier social and political problems. Marina’s conclusions are astute, balanced, and fair, and she persuasively demonstrates both how important it is to test commonly held assumptions and how difficult it is to establish standards for policy effectiveness in the counterterrorism field."
Gabbi FischerTowards DIUx 2.1 or 3.0? Examining DIUx’s Progress Towards Procurement Innovation
Thesis Advisors: Herb Lin, Dan Boneh
"In 2015, Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter announced the creation of Defense Innovation Unit Experimental (DIUx). Through some great case-based work, Gabbi cuts through the complexity of the traditional acquisition system to observe that DIUX fills two important niches in the defense innovation ecosystem: it facilitates connections between DoD users and the tech community and it exercises non-traditional acquisition authority (called Other Transaction Authorities (OTAs)) to expedite contracting. But she also cautions that the use of OTA may not be compatible in the long run with the traditional acquisition system, and suggests that future DIUX efforts may have to take advantage of other existing acquisition authorities (which do exist but which are rarely used) to make further progress in improving the coupling between the tech sector and the DoD. She makes also substantive recommendations that DIUX should take seriously if it wants to survive in the long term."
Wyatt HoranEvaluating the U.S. Foreign Policy Institutions in Permitting a Coercive Russian Energy Policy
Thesis Advisor: Coit D. Blacker
"Following the twin “oil shocks” of the 1970s, the U.S. Government moved effectively to reduce the potential economic and political impact of any future such events by reorienting and reshaping key foreign policy institutions. When, thirty years later, the Russian government under Vladimir Putin began to manipulate Russian deliveries of natural gas to its customers in Europe, the U.S. failed to respond in a focused, deliberate and coordinated way. In this provocative senior thesis, Wyatt asks whether the clumsy American response to Russia’s manipulation of this vital energy resource contributed to Moscow’s alarming behavior. He answers in the affirmative and by so doing forces us to think hard about how seemingly obscure organizational issues impact the effectiveness of U.S. foreign policy. Wyatt’s thesis is bold and a little unsettling. It also reads like a detective novel, which is a tribute to the author’s willingness to run risks in search of a good story."
Tori KellerThe Rise and Fall of Secular Politics in Iraq
Thesis Advisor: Lisa Blaydes
"As you know from interacting with Tori over the past year(s), she is a passionate – almost obsessively curious – student of contemporary Iraqi politics. Her drive to understand the case has led her to write a normatively-motivated, policy-relevant thesis on the failure of democratic consolidation in Iraq. Her research suggests that a non-sectarian political future for Iraq was possible; the historical antecedents for such a vision existed. But as a result of a combination of US missteps, Iranian interference and, most importantly, the way these factors manifested into an insecure security environment, secular parties never really had a real chance to succeed even if a plurality of voters supported such an outlook. To write this thesis, Tori invested in her own human capital development in impressive ways. She studied Arabic, learned ArcGIS mapping software, collected original data, and undertook statistical analysis – deploying the skills she had acquired in her four years at Stanford with the goal of answering this research question. In the end, I believe she has the right answer as well. If there was any doubt left in her mind about whether she got it “right,” I feel confident that she would still be puzzling through the research today."
Alexander LubkinPlutonium Management and Disposition in the United States: History and Analysis of the Program
Thesis Advisor: Rod Ewing
"Alex’s thesis examines the issues related to the failure of the U.S. program for the disposition of excess plutonium from dismantled nuclear weapons. Based on his survey of the literature and interviews with key actors in this program, Alex analyzed the U.S. program and has made a number of important observations and conclusions concerning the causes for the failure of the U.S. program. His most significant conclusion is that one of the major causes of failure was that the U.S. program to use irradiated MOX fuel for the disposition of the plutonium was not consistent with U.S. nuclear policy. The U.S. is pursuing an open nuclear fuel cycle, and thus has limited experience with large scale processing of radioactive materials and the fabrication of MOX fuel. Alex was able to identify a number of other issues, such as over reliance on cost and schedule estimates of the different strategies and a failure to utilize advances in materials science for the development of actinide waste forms. I am very impressed with Alex’s dedication to this research project, and his persistence in the review of an often confusing and obscure literature. We have met regularly over the past year. I outline broad areas that he might investigate, but then he took these ideas and developed them according to his on evaluation of a variety of different sources. He also did an exceptional job of synthesizing the information from the interviews into an interesting and informative chapter in his thesis. Alex’s research will be the basis for a publication, but most importantly, he has opened the door to a whole series of policy issues that require more detailed analysis. He has certainly educated me on a number of these issues."
Jian Yang LumTo Bomb or Stab? The Impact of Ideology and Territorial Control on Rebel Tactics
Thesis Advisors: Joseph Felter, Jeremy Weinstein
“Lumpy” as we know him- explores how rebel groups’ ideology and degree of territorial control affect the type of violence they choose to employ in pursuit of their aims. Using fine grained conflict data and case studies from thirty-six years of insurgency and counterinsurgency in the Philippines, Lumpy finds both quantitative and qualitative evidence in support of the predictive model he develops in his thesis. In sum, rebel groups with weaker ideological commitment and more limited control of the territory they operate in are more likely to initiate indiscriminate attacks such as bombings and employment of improvised explosive devices. More ideologically committed rebels, and those exercising greater territorial control, initiate violence that is comparatively more discriminate such as targeted raids and assassinations. The human toll and economic costs incurred by civil war and insurgency around the world are staggering and continuing to mount. There is an urgent need for policy relevant scholarship that increases our understanding of the local level violence associated with these deadly conflicts and how states can better anticipate and respond to these threats. Lumpy’s thesis makes a significant contribution to these important ends."
Elizabeth MargolinShould I Retweet or Should I Go? Pro-ISIS Twitter Communities and American Decapitation Strategy
Thesis Advisors: Martha Crenshaw, Justin Grimmer
"There are many studies of the U.S. Government’s use of military force in “decapitation” strikes against terrorist leaders, particularly the effects of these strikes on levels of violence and degree of organizational cohesion. Researchers have also analyzed the relationship between social media and terrorism generally. But the specific question of the social media reactions of jihadist sympathizers to decapitation strikes directed against Islamic State leaders was neglected until the idea occurred to Eli Margolin, who took it up as the subject of her honors thesis. This difficult, demanding, and often frustrating research project required Eli to master new cutting-edge analytical methodologies and struggle to acquire elusive data from the archived Twitter accounts of now banned users, obstacles that she overcame with impressive ability, determination, and sophistication. After extensive and thoughtful consideration of three carefully selected cases, she found that Twitter followers of jihadist causes react quite differently to the deaths of different types of terrorist leaders. Her intellectual ambition and tenacity produced a thesis that is excellent in terms of conceptualization, analytical rigor, and empirical foundation."
Lauren NewbyFrom Zero to Sixty: Explaining the Proliferation of Shi’a Militias in Iraq after 2003
Thesis Advisor: Martha Crenshaw
"Why has there been a sharp increase in the number of Shia militias in Iraq, a troubling development that may jeopardize Iraqi progress toward stability and democracy? Lauren Newby could not find a good answer in her review of the theoretical literature, so she proposed an original one of her own. Most scholars attribute the proliferation of violent non-state actors to the fragmentation of existing groups through splintering and splitting, whereas Lauren shows that in Iraq the increase is due to the emergence of new groups. Researchers typically focus on groups directly opposing the state, whereas the Iraqi militias side with the incumbent government. Most studies are limited to groups operating in a single bounded conflict zone, whereas the politics of Iraq and Syria are linked. Lauren concludes that the Syrian civil war has been a major impetus for the formation of Shia militias in Iraq and that most are established by Iraqi political parties. Her thesis is exemplary in making a clear and convincing claim, contrasting it to alternative explanations, and providing new supporting evidence from primary sources."
nhViet NguyenTerritorial Disputes in Court: Power, Compliance, and Defiance
Thesis Advisor: Kenneth Schultz
"In the wake of the arbitration ruling over the China-Philippines dispute in the South China Sea, AnhViet wanted to understand what the prospects were for this ruling to help resolve the conflict. To do so, he placed this case in the context of other territorial disputes that have involved great powers or states who were significantly more powerful than their adversaries. This led to the central research questions: why and under what conditions do great powers comply with adverse court rulings over territorial issues? The thesis draws nicely on the existing literature to articulate several hypotheses and then tests these hypotheses using a variety of methods. Case studies of the US-Mexico dispute over the Chamizal tract and the Nigeria-Cameroon dispute over the Bakassi Penninsula show that great powers who initially reject adverse court decisions might later find these rulings to be a convenient basis for settlement. He also makes a very important and sophisticated point that great power compliance with court rulings may reflect their ability to keep high salience issues off the agenda. The conclusion is mildly optimistic about the prospects for (eventual) compliance while remaining appropriately clear-eyed about the limits of international law in this context. Overall, AnhViet does an admirable job blending theoretical material, historical case studies, and large n data to develop his argument. Moreover, his application of these lessons to the contemporary case of the South China Sea dispute is nuanced and compelling. In short, AnhViet’s thesis represents an excellent example of how academic research can be made relevant to current policy issues."
Thu-An PhamOn Treaties and Taboos: U.S. Responses to International Norms in the NPT and Genocide Convention (1945-1999)
Thesis Advisor: David Holloway
"Thu-An Pham has written an outstanding thesis on the role of norms in international relations. The United States has not tried strenuously to enforce the Genocide Convention of 1948, which calls for the prevention and punishment of genocide. It has, however, actively sought to enforce the nonproliferation norm expressed in the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty of 1968. What explains the difference? On the basis of a subtle theoretical analysis and detailed empirical research, Thu-An offers three answers. First, the Nonproliferation Treaty is better supported than the Genocide Convention by institutions that monitor and enforce compliance. Second, the United States has regarded the norm of nuclear nonproliferation as more important for its national security than the ban on genocide. And third, the nonproliferation norm supports the current international order, which is based on the primacy of states in international relations. The Genocide Convention, by contrast, threatens to weaken the foundations of that order by challenging the primacy of states. Thu-An’s thesis suggests that there are limits on the role that international norms can play in a system of states. This is a wonderful thesis on a crucial issue in international security."
Jack WellerCounting the Czars: Extra-Bureaucratic Appointees in American Foreign Policy
Thesis Advisor: Amy Zegart
"White House czars are frequently discussed in the press, but most people don’t really know what they are and very few scholars have studied them. Yet the use of czars has serious implications for the presidency—signaling when the regular bureaucracy cannot get the job done. Jack Weller’s thesis provides a novel and important contribution to the study of the American presidency. He compiles an original dataset of every foreign policy czar created during the past 100 years and examines alternative explanations for why some presidents used czars more than others. He finds something surprising: czar creation is NOT driven by the individual management style of the president. Instead, it is driven by the external threat environment. Presidents facing simultaneous wars – as FDR did in World War II and George W. Bush did after 9/11 – are more likely to create czars than others. Jack’s thesis is beautifully written and masterfully argued, earning him the honor of being Stanford’s czar of czars."
Andrew J. Grotto, a former top National Security Council cybersecurity official in the White House, will join Stanford’s Center for International Security and Cooperation this summer.
Grotto will hold the William J. Perry International Security Fellowship and serve as a research fellow at the Hoover Institution. His appointment is for two years, and he will also be a fellow in the Stanford Cyber Initiative.
Cybersecurity focus
Grotto has been involved in virtually every major U.S. cyber policy initiative of the past nine years, from his time on Capitol Hill through his tenure in the Obama Administration as Commerce Secretary Penny Pritzker's senior advisor on technology policy, and to his recent service for two presidents as senior director for cyber policy at the National Security Council.
Amy Zegart, CISAC's co-director for the social sciences and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, said, "Grotto is one of the world's leading cyber policymakers. He brings deep knowledge, penetrating insights, and experience at the highest levels on issues ranging from trade to espionage to cyber warfare. We are delighted to have him join the cyber community at CISAC and Hoover."
In an interview, Grotto said that cyber policy remains underdeveloped as a distinct policy domain. And that has drawn him to CISAC, he noted, “for its commitment to becoming a leading institution supporting the development of this domain.”
Grotto first became familiar with CISAC's work during an earlier phase of his career when he focused on U.S. policy towards nuclear weapons - how to prevent their spread, and their role in U.S. national security strategy. CISAC core faculty member Scott Sagan was an early mentor of Grotto’s and first exposed him to CISAC and its scholarly work. Grotto describes the center as a “first-rate research institution at a world class university, with great people. I'm thrilled to be a part of it.”
Topics to explore
Cybersecurity policy is a vast field, Grotto said, because virtually every national security challenge facing the country has a cyber dimension to it.
“I'd be hard pressed to identify a single directorate within the National Security Council that my team and I did not at some point work with on a ‘cyber and…’ problem: cyber and the financial services sector, cyber and the electric grid, cyber and global economic competitiveness, cyber and China, to name a few. So, there's no shortage of cyber-related topics to write on,” he said.
Several policy problems stand out as foundational for Grotto, and these will be the focus of his research and writing while at CISAC:
• Development of analytic frameworks for defining the dimensions and boundaries of private sector responsibility, especially infrastructure, for defending against cyber threats, versus the government’s responsibility, and using these frameworks to evaluate cybersecurity regulation and identify opportunities and challenges for more effective cybersecurity partnerships between the government and the private sector.
• Cyber-enabled information operations as both a threat to, and a tool of statecraft for, liberal democracies.
• Opportunities and constraints facing offensive cyber operations as a tool of statecraft, especially those relating to norms of sovereignty in a digitally connected world.
For example, Grotto explained, an adversary physically located in Country X may have cyber infrastructure in Country Y and Country Z, such that an operation against that adversary generates effects in one or more third countries. “How we approach this ‘third country’ issue will have dramatic ramifications for the practical role of offensive cyber operations in U.S. national security strategy,” he noted.
• Governance of global trade in information technologies, especially cybersecurity-related regulation, norms of behavior in cyberspace for governments and private actors, and the appropriateness of applying traditional arms control tools such as export controls to limit the proliferation and use of malicious cyber capabilities.
National Security Council highlights
Grotto said working at the National Security Council was “a privilege of a lifetime. It was the most challenging and intense job I have ever had, and easily the most rewarding.”
His portfolio spanned a range of cyber policy issues, including defense of critical infrastructure—financial services, energy, communications, transportation, health care, electoral infrastructure, and other vital sectors—cybersecurity risk management policies for federal networks, consumer cybersecurity, and cyber incident response policy and incident management. He also covered technology policy topics with a nexus to cyber policy including encryption, surveillance, privacy, Internet of Things, and the national security dimensions of artificial intelligence and machine learning.
Grotto said his first job out of graduate school was at a prominent Washington, D.C. think tank. “I viewed it as a waypoint on the path to becoming a law professor, and an academic career focused on international trade law and policy,” he said.
There he was surrounded by people who had served in government, and their “passion for public service was infectious,” he recalled.
He left the think tank to join the Professional Staff of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, where he served as then-Chairman Dianne Feinstein’s (D-CA) lead staff overseeing cyber-related activities of the intelligence community and all aspects of NSA’s mission. He also served as committee designee first for Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) and later for Senator Kent Conrad (D-ND), advising the senators on oversight of the intelligence community, including of covert action programs, and was a contributing author of the “Committee Study of the Central Intelligence Agency’s Detention and Interrogation Program.”
In 2013, he left the committee to become Commerce Secretary Penny Pritzker’s senior advisor on technology policy, advising Pritzker on all aspects of technology policy, including Internet of Things, net neutrality, privacy, national security reviews of foreign investment in the U.S. technology sector, and international developments affecting the competitiveness of the U.S. technology sector.
While serving on the NSC, Grotto played a key role in shaping President Obama’s Cybersecurity National Action Plan and driving its implementation. He was also the principal architect of the Trump Administration's cybersecurity executive order, “Strengthening the Cybersecurity of Federal Networks and Critical Infrastructure.”
During his time on Capitol Hill, he led the negotiation and drafting of the information sharing title of the Cybersecurity Act of 2012, which later served as the foundation for the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act that President Obama signed in 2015.
Grotto received a master’s degree in public administration from Harvard University, a law degree from UC Berkeley, and a bachelor’s degree in philosophy from the University of Kentucky.
MEDIA CONTACT:
Andy Grotto, Center for International Security and Cooperation: grotto@stanford.edu
Clifton B. Parker, Center for International Security and Cooperation: 650-725-6488, cbparker@stanford.edu
CISAC's co-director Amy Zegart wrote this essay, "James Comey's 'Shock and Awe' Testimony," for The Atlantic in its June 8 edition and was also quoted in this Stanford News Service article:
Imagine that two years ago, you sequestered a jury of 12 Americans, kept them in a news-free zone, and brought them today to hear former FBI Director James Comey testify before the Senate Intelligence Committee. Chances are that all of them—no matter what their political beliefs—would be stunned and outraged.
From the perspective of one of these Americans, Comey dropped bombshell after bombshell: The Russians are mucking around in American democratic elections, trying to change how we think, how we act, how we vote—and they will be back. The attorney general cannot be trusted to ensure impartial enforcement of the law. The president fired the FBI director and then lied about why he did it. Yet by the time Comey said these things in an open hearing, all of it was old news. It should have been more shocking than it was, but on some level, Americans were used to it.
Some historical context here is important. Only one FBI Director has ever been fired since J. Edgar Hoover took the job back in 1924: William Sessions, who was sacked by President Bill Clinton in 1993 after the Justice Department's own Office of Professional Responsibility found so many severe ethical lapses, they filled a 161-page report. It included schemes to avoid paying taxes, using government funds to build an expensive home fence that actually reduced the security of the property, using FBI resources for personal purposes, and involving his wife, Alice, in bureau management in “entirely inappropriate” ways. Comey, by contrast, was fired by President Trump for doing his job. Big difference. One was miscarrying justice and abusing power; the other was carrying out justice and speaking truth to power.
Similarly, the only episode in recent history approximating the cloud hanging over the attorney general’s office occurred during the Watergate scandal. That attorney general chose to resign rather than fire White House special prosecutor Archibald Cox and impede an investigation reaching into the White House. This attorney general, by contrast, appears to be implicated in an investigation that reaches into the White House.
Finally, never in American history has a foreign power so deliberately, powerfully, and maliciously tried to distort the cornerstone of American democracy. Comey sent this point home in the hearing, declaring, “There should be no fuzz on this whatsoever. The Russians interfered in our election during the 2016 cycle. They did it with purpose. They did it with sophistication. They did it with overwhelming technical efforts. … It is a high confidence judgment of the entire intelligence community. ... It's not a close call.”
Comey’s testimony delivered a “shock and awe” campaign, FBI-style: calm, cautious, and candid, at once stoic and relatable. It was as though Comey were trying to reach through our television sets and shake the body politic into our collective senses.
And yet, his shock and awe testimony may not shock and awe for long. The biggest story of the day is how unlikely this is to remain the biggest story. In all likelihood, after the Twittersphere dies down, partisans will retreat to their respective corners and business as usual will return to Washington.
Why?
Because of something called the “normalization of deviance:” the more frequently exceptional things happen, the less we think of them as exceptional. Over time, we become desensitized to events that fall far outside the normal range—often with disastrous consequences. The space shuttle Challenger exploded in 1986 despite previous shuttle launches that revealed O-ring seals in the shuttle’s rocket boosters were cracking in cold weather. They shouldn’t have been cracking at all. But NASA “normalized” the poor performance of O-rings as acceptable and okayed the launch, even with record low temperatures forecast for liftoff. Seven astronauts, including Christa McAuliffe, the first teacher in space, were killed.
We experience the normalization of deviance in daily life, too. Ever hear a funny noise in your car? The first time, it seems alarming. After living with it for a few days, however, you think it must not be so serious after all. You tell yourself the car seems to be running just fine. You grow accustomed to the noise. After a while you don’t notice it anymore. And maybe the car really is fine. Or maybe the funny noise is an indication that the car is about to experience a catastrophic breakdown (which is what happened to me one night, when I assumed a strange noise in my car was really nothing, until the car broke down on the freeway, at night, in Los Angeles, “without warning.”)
The Trump era has brought the normalization of deviance to politics. In four short months, this administration’s national-security advisor has had to resign in disgrace for lying about his contacts with Russians and now faces possible criminal charges. The attorney general is so tainted by his own Russian-related activities that he has had to recuse himself from the bureau’s investigation of Russian-related activities. And the FBI director, who by law serves a 10-year term precisely to ensure independence from the president, was fired by the president because he was independent. This is bizarro world. Any one of these events would in normal times be enough to bring down a president. And yet senators today were talking about whether President Trump’s exact words to Jim Comey constituted a hope, a wish, an order, a directive, a threat, or as one senator characterized it, simply a “light touch” approach.
Comey was right about one thing: The Russians “are coming after America.” They may not have to. In this era of normalized deviance, we are defeating ourselves.
Read Amy Zegart's comments and those from other Stanford faculty in this Stanford News Service article.
The Center on Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law (CDDRL) at Stanford University announced today that it has launched the Global Digital Policy Incubator (GDPi). GDPi’s mission is to help develop governance norms for the global digital ecosystem that reinforce democratic values, universal human rights and the rule of law. It will serve as a multi-stakeholder collaboration hub at Stanford for technologists, governments, civil society and the private sector actors. GDPi will identify and incubate global policy and governance innovations that enhance freedom, security and trust in the digital realm.
GDPi will be led by Eileen Donahoe who is widely recognized as a leading advocate for human rights in the digital realm, and as an experienced international lawyer and diplomat working to develop global norms for Internet governance and digital policy.
Donahoe was appointed by President Obama to serve as the first United States Ambassador to the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva. After leaving government, Donahoe served as director of global affairs at Human Rights Watch, where she represented the organization worldwide on human rights foreign policy, with special emphasis on digital rights, cybersecurity and Internet governance.
“Silicon Valley is a natural locus for cross-sector international collaboration on global digital norms,” said Donahoe. “Our mission will be to facilitate development of operational policies and processes to address societal challenges that arise from technological innovation. I am so excited to have the opportunity to build this global innovation hub for digital policy at CDDRL, the perfect home for this dynamic and interdisciplinary project.”
GDPi will explore the complex roles of government and private sector technology firms in the digital environment. While rapid adoption of digital technology has brought many benefits and challenges to society, most legal and governance institutions have not kept pace or adjusted to meet the corresponding changes.
GDPi will address governance challenges in four interrelated areas: digital rights; digital security; artificial Intelligence-based governance and trans-national Internet governance. The initiative seeks to engage stakeholders in new articulations of existing international human rights and humanitarian law. [[{"fid":"226716","view_mode":"crop_870xauto","fields":{"format":"crop_870xauto","field_file_image_description[und][0][value]":"","field_file_image_alt_text[und][0][value]":false,"field_file_image_title_text[und][0][value]":false,"field_credit[und][0][value]":"","field_caption[und][0][value]":"Eileen with President Obama during her tenure as the first US Ambassador to the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva. ","thumbnails":"crop_870xauto","alt":"","title":""},"type":"media","field_deltas":{"3":{"format":"crop_870xauto","field_file_image_description[und][0][value]":"","field_file_image_alt_text[und][0][value]":false,"field_file_image_title_text[und][0][value]":false,"field_credit[und][0][value]":"","field_caption[und][0][value]":"Eileen with President Obama during her tenure as the first US Ambassador to the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva. ","thumbnails":"crop_870xauto","alt":"","title":""}},"link_text":null,"attributes":{"style":"margin: 3px 10px; float: right; height: 393px; width: 300px;","class":"media-element file-crop-870xauto","data-delta":"3"}}]]
Larry Diamond, a senior fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute and an affiliated faculty member at CDDRL, will serve as the principal investigator on the GDPi project.
“We are really delighted that Eileen Donahoe has agreed to join CDDRL as adjunct professor and executive director of the new GDPi,” said Diamond. “Every month, it seems, social media and other digital tools are becoming more and more powerful and pervasive in their effects on our politics, government and daily lives. As digital technology races forward, it not only generates new platforms and possibilities for human empowerment, but it also poses growing challenges for human rights and individual, national and international security.”
Diamond launched the Program on Liberation Technology (LibTech) at CDDRL in 2009 to examine how technology has empowered democratic progress. GDPi is a successor to the LibTech program, enabling the Stanford team to take a more comprehensive and policy-oriented approach to digital policy challenges - involving not only research but also innovation to incubate new ideas and approaches.
Quarterly workshops and an annual global conference will be the foundation for GDPi’s work in the coming year.
The GDPi initiative joins five other core research programs at CDDRL, which probe some of the most urgent issues facing the field of democracy and development. Working in partnership with other institutes on campus, the program will benefit from the guidance and active engagement of cross-disciplinary faculty from Stanford Law School, the Center for Internet and Society, the Stanford Cyber Initiative and the Center for Social Innovation at the Graduate School of Business.
Michael McFaul, director of Stanford’s Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies expressed confidence that GDPi will help solidify Stanford’s role as a global thought-leader on governance challenges that flow from digital technology.
“The Global Digital Policy Incubator will become an important hub at Stanford, as we seek to help government and private sector policymakers address governance challenges of the 21st century digital world.”
More information about the Global Digital Policy Incubator can be found at http://cddrl.fsi.stanford.edu/global-digital-policy-incubator
CAPTIONS:
The picture in the left upper corner: Eileen Donahoe addressing the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva, where she served as the first US Ambassador 2010-2013.
The picture on the right: Eileen Donahoe with President Obama during her tenure at the UNHRC.