Geo Djinn

To date, no universal standard exists for categorizing security commitments, or "alliances", between countries. Yet, it is clear to most observers of international affairs, that not all security commitments are created equal. Being a member state of NATO, for instance, has many more, and much greater implications than being party to a typical Security Cooperation Agreement. The most recent conflict in Ukraine is evidence of this very fact. Thus, while a spectrum for gauging the level of commitment between two or more countries to each other's security obviously exists, a standardized method for categorizing these commitments, accordingly, does not.

This project proposes its own method of categorization, through an evaluation of the practical consequences and implications that a security commitment obliges their members fulfill. Through this evaluation, each security commitment is assigned one of the following 8 "Tiers", based on which one it fits best:

Tier Explanations

Note: Higher Tiers often include the same implications as lower Tiers, but lower Tiers necessarily do not include the same implications as higher Tiers. Example:

• NATO (Tier I) entails intelligence-sharing, despite not being a Tier IV commitment, like the QUAD.
• But the QUAD (Tier IV) does not entail the interoperability of military units between member states, like NATO, because it is of a lesser tier.

Tier I: Mutual Defense Pacts

• Defining Question: If a member is attacked by a 3rd party, are the other members contractually obligated to join the conflict on that member’s behalf?
• Implications: These alliances necessarily include a guarantee of mutual-defense in the event of external aggression, not witholding “first strike” operations, and typically include:
  • Unified command structure
  • Interoperability of units between member states
  • Shared military bases
• Formalizes an Ironclad security relationship – “Our security interests are one and the same.”
• Examples: North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), etc.

Tier II: Collective Security Arrangements

• Defining Question: Does it constitute a unified command structure?
• Implications: These arrangements necessarily include a unified command structure, and typically include:
  • Joint border defense
  • Commitments to collectively mobilize and respond to threats to regional and/or global peace and security
• Formalizes a Congruent security relationship – “Our security interests are almost identical to one another, barring a few caveats”
• Examples: United Nations Command (UNC), Peninsula Shield Force, etc.

Tier III: Regional Defense Pacts

• Defining Question: Is it primarily oriented around facilitating peace/security within a given region?
• Implications: These pacts focus on the security of a particular region (both including and excluding the borders of member countries), and address specific regional threats like terrorism, insurgency, and piracy, among others. They typically include:
  • Stationing/Status of Armed Forces Agreements (SOFAs)
  • Lend/Lease Agreements
  • Training/Logistical Provision Agreements
• Formalizes a Congruent security relationship – “Our security interests are almost identical to one another, barring a few caveats”
• Examples: Russia–Syria–Iran–Iraq Coalition (RSII), American–Japanese–Korean trilateral pact (JAROKUS), etc.

Tier IV: Strategic Partnerships

• Defining Question: Does it orient around strategically combatting “threat(s) within the region”?
• Implications: These partnerships focus on broad strategic goals and interests, including defense and diplomatic support. They often include high-level dialogues and joint initiatives, but may not guarantee automatic military support. They typically include:
  • Cybersecurity/Intelligence sharing
  • Access to military facilities
• Formalizes a Strategic security relationship – “Our security interests have a great deal to do with one another”
• Examples: the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (QUAD), British–Polish–Ukrainian trilateral pact, etc.

Tier V: Bilateral Security Arrangements

• Defining Question: Is it hyper-specific to commitments made between only two countries?
• Implications: These are specific agreements between two countries focusing on defense cooperation, military support, and strategic alignment. They often include provisions for military aid, joint exercises, and defense-related exchanges. They typically include:
  • Defense Cooperation Agreements (DCAs)
  • Joint military excercises
• Formalizes a Strategic security relationship – “Our security interests have a great deal to do with one another”
• Examples: Armenia-France Defence Cooperation Agreement, Papua New Guinea-United States Defence Agreement, etc.

Tier VI: Security Cooperation Agreements

• Defining Question: Does it focus on specific issues like terrorism/piracy through specific practices like the sharing of intelligence/resources/training to that end?
• Implications: These agreements focus on enhancing security through cooperation on specific issues like counter-terrorism, intelligence sharing, and joint training. They do not necessarily include mutual defense commitments. They typically include:
  • Limited sharing of relevant intelligence
  • Limited access to relevant military facilities/capabilities
• Formalizes a Cooperative security relationship – “Our security interests require the lending of materials/resources/intelligence/training for very specific issues, though not others”
• Examples: Islamic Military Counter Terrorism Coalition (IMCTC), Combined Maritime Forces (CMF), etc.

Tier VII: Economic Political Security

• Defining Question: Does it focus on furthering economic/political integration through a security apparatus?
• Implications: These alliances primarily focus on economic and political integration but include security components to enhance stability and security through economic interdependence and political cooperation. They typically include:
  • Border Security Treaties
  • Customs Controls Treaties
  • Common Foreign and Security Policy
• Formalizes a Loose security relationship – “Our security interests are just enough to pay lip service to”
• Examples: European Union (EU), Moldova–European Union Defense and Security Agreement, etc.

Tier IX: Confidence Building Measures

• Defining question: Is it primarily nominal/surface-level efforts made toward building trust?
• Implications: These measures aim to build trust between states through transparency, communication, and limited cooperative actions. They typically include:
  • Letters of Intent
  • Memorandums of Understanding (MoUs)
  • Non-Agression Pacts
• Formalizes a Loose security relationship – “Our security interests are just enough to pay lip service to”
• Examples: United States-Vietnam Comprehensive Strategic Partnership, Organization of Turkic States (OTS), etc.

• Click your country! - Now it’s purple.
• What’s in blue? - Any country contractually committed to ensuring some form of the selected country’s security.
• Some are bluer than others? - That reflects the extent to which they are committed, or their greatest “Tier” of commitment.
• What are the dots? - Foreign military bases
  • 🟣 Purple are those of the selected country.
  • 🔵 Blue are those of a country that the selected country is in a Mutual-Defense (Tier I) Pact with.
  • Learn more in Military Bases section.
• Hover over each of the above to learn more.

Ethnicity (n.) - "Identity with or membership in a particular racial, national, or cultural group and observance of that group's customs, beliefs, and language" (source).

Displays all ethnicities of the world, according to the latest most comprehensive and publicly availible 1964 Атлас Народов Мира - “Atlas of the Peoples of the World”, and supplemented by recently reported demographic data.

Note: If you notice an error in representation, please let us know! We’ll do our best to fix it.

• Hover over your region of interest! - A tooltip with more information about the people who populate that geolocation will appear:
  • Ethnicity - denotes the name of that geolocation’s primary ethnicity
  • Ethnic Group(s) - Lists out the broader ethno-linguistic group(s), which that ethnicity is a part of, in descending order, by group membership, in blue.
• Click one of the tooltip’s blue Ethnic Groups! - Now you’ve isolated only those ethnicities, that are a member of that ethno-linguistic group, for display.
• Click the “Ethnicities” map mode button again, at any point, to restore display of the world’s ethnicities. Or, continue clicking individual Ethnic Groups, to see where members of that group exist around the world.

International Organization (n.) - "an organization that is established by a treaty or other type of instrument governed by international law and possesses its own legal personality, such as the United Nations, the World Health Organization, International Union for Conservation of Nature, and BRICS" (source).

Displays all international organizations listed in the CIA’s “The World Factbook” database, and supplemented with an exhaustive traversal through all the organizations linked to in the regional organization wiki. The extent of the database resulting from this process exists no where else online.

Note: "observer", "associate", "partner", and so forth are statuses with definitions and implications specific to each organization. Future versions will link to them.

• Hover over your country! - A tooltip with columns for the Economic, Security, Political, and Humanitarian organizations it is a part of will appear in blue.
• Click on one of the blue organization names! - The tooltip will change to give you more information about the organization’s:
  • Full name
  • Objective
  • Member/Partner/Observer states
• Want to see others? Click “more orgs” on the tooltip in blue and repeat.

A “Coincidence Score” is the proportion (percentage) of how often two countries’ vote the same way in an international forum vs not. If the avg (average) coincidence is 100%, they vote the same way every time, and are likely extremely politically aligned. If the coincidence is 0%, they vote differently every time, and are likely politically antithetical to one another.

The view you have on startup are the Coincidence Scores of all countries, relative to the United States, in the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA), regarding any and all issues, from 1946 to the present day. To change this view:

• Alternate tabs at the top of the screen for Coincidence Scores from the:
  • UNGA - United Nations General Assembly
  • UNSC - United Nations Security Council
  • UNHRC - United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
  • You also have the option of viewing scores from all the above, as a time-series
• Use the “Year” slider to adjust the start/end year of the votes being counted
• Change “Country A” to any country, to see how “Country B” votes relative to them (and vice versa)
• Change “Voting Bloc” to see only those “Country B” in the selected organization (BRICS, Arab League, etc)
• Change “Issue Code Selector” to isolate votes on the subject of:
  • HR - Human Rights
  • NU - Nuclear Weapons
  • ME - The Middle East
  • DI - General Disarmament
  • CO - Colonization/De-colonization
  • EC - Economic Development
  • Overall - All the above

“FBIC” is the shorthand for the “Formal Bilateral Influence Capacity” Index, as defined by the University of Denver’s Josef Korbel School of International Studies. If you would like a full overview, please visit their site. But in short, it a combination of the following two indicies:

• “Bandwidth” measures the volume of interactions between countries
• Dependence measures how reliant one country is on another for their economic activity or security services by measuring levels of trade as a share of total trade or as a share of GDP.

Both calculated using various economic-, political-, and security-related variables for the index values in those respective domains.

The view you have on startup are the FBIC index values of all countries, relative to France, in the year 2020. To change this view:

• Alternate tabs at the top of the screen for Histograms, Line Charts, a Pie Chart, and Bubble Chart. This description will focus on the “Choropleth Map: Heat by Sender Country”, however.
• Choose between the following options for the “Metric Selection” dropdown:
  • Economic Bandwidth - Volume of Economic interactions between the highlighted country and the selected “Sender of Influence” country
  • Economic Dependence - Proportion of trade or GDP stemming from Economic interactions with the sender country
  • Political Bandwidth - Volume of Political interactions
  • Security Bandwidth - Volume of Security interactions
  • Security Dependence - Proportion of total Security interactions (weapons sales, military drills, etc) stemming from Security interactions with the sender country
  • FBIC - Combination of all the above
• Change “Sender of Influence” to any country, to see how the other countries on the map are influenced by them
• Use the “Year” slider to change the year of the data in view