{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.0184, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0016, 'mean_word_length': 5.28643216080402, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Playing the Ethnic Card: Diversion, Transborder Ethnic Ties, and Sponsorship of Rebel Movements


 Under what circumstances do third-party states oppose governments that marginalize their ethnic kin in foreign civil conflicts? We argue that the effect of transborder ethnic ties on third-party support for rebel movements depends upon two factors: (1) a constellation of ethnic power relations in which an ethnicity with access to political power in a potential intervener but is marginalized in a civil conflict state and (2) the political insecurity of leaders in a potential intervener. Said leaders facing a high probability of removal from office are willing to undertake risky foreign policies, including support for rebel movements, hoping that such actions will generate an ethnically tinged rally effect. We draw upon the literature on diversionary theory to develop an empirical expectation. We then assemble a dataset of potential intervener–civil conflict state dyad-years to model this expectation. The political insecurity of leaders is measured with a variety of proxies. Our findings suggest that the well-known diversionary theory can be applied to a novel dependent variable that of third-party state sponsorship of rebel movements.