How State Power is Amplified in Extraordinary Circumstances
I thought the assassination of General Qassem Suleimani was the pinnacle of how a superpower can display its unhindered political power. Here it is a sovereign country A murdering a top military official of sovereign country B, entirely within the territory of sovereign country C without any sort of explicit agreement from elected officials of said country C before the event taking place. Complaints from C's officials are almost entirely ignored by their counterparts from A on the ground of national security taking precedence over respecting sovereign rights.
Yet, the outbreak of the Wuhan coronavirus illustrates that sovereign states can be even more unhindered with its display of power when there is a popular, valid reason to do so. As the virus continues to fester in China, multiple states have ordered customs authorities to refuse entry to individuals from Wuhan or China in general, whether or not the person is from the area. Airlines, no doubt wary about the sudden decrease in traffic to and fro China, are halting China-bound flights.
The Chinese government, at the center of the epidemic, has in particular shown the might of the authoritarian state. Whole cities are put under lockdown as the state mandates the cancelations of long-distance trains and busses, alongside the enforcement of extended vacations from a usually festive but currently subdued Chinese New Year's holiday. The state essentially has banned the movement of people in a bid to contain the contagion.
Whether such a drastic move is necessary or even effective is beyond the scope of this discussion, but the ability for the state to dramatically severe the basic rights of movement for millions upon millions of people in such a short time, and direct massive amount of human resources, materials for blocking traffic and checking for sickness, and ensure that private individuals and firms adhere to these policies or face severe social ostracization, is unfathomable even for people a few decades ago.
Technology, of course, plays a central role in allowing the state to project so much power in short a short notice. The power of the internet allows people to come to grips with the potential lethality of a virus even before it becomes a global epidemic, thereby quickly allowing them to get behind drastic government action. And modern transport infrastructure and software management allow materials and staff needed to combat the epidemic to get to where they need to be safely and quickly.
And yes, technology can also allow state power to be displayed in more deadly ways. The assassination of General Suleimani was made possible by high-tech drones that the Iraqi military had no power to stop or even detect despite it flying over Iraqi airspace for hundreds of kilometers. The availability of such stealthy tools allows sovereign rights of another state to be that much more easily violated, with little repercussions for the violator.
Yet, technology, and the state power that it allows for, continue to has its limits. In an epidemic, the state can throw millions of dollars into containing the disease, but to really defeat the disease requires good old fashioned research by brainy medical professionals looking through microscopes to find the vulnerability of the virus. Without well-trained professionals, the state's millions of dollars mean little at the end.
And indeed, the state can only deploy extraordinary power at extraordinary times because it plays into the sense of fear the general public has, whether it be about national security or personal health. If the common people see the state developing its power and technology but not solving the problem, they may quickly turn on the state through technology-enabled communication channels like SNS. So technology can be both a booster and a detractor of state power.
Yet, the outbreak of the Wuhan coronavirus illustrates that sovereign states can be even more unhindered with its display of power when there is a popular, valid reason to do so. As the virus continues to fester in China, multiple states have ordered customs authorities to refuse entry to individuals from Wuhan or China in general, whether or not the person is from the area. Airlines, no doubt wary about the sudden decrease in traffic to and fro China, are halting China-bound flights.
The Chinese government, at the center of the epidemic, has in particular shown the might of the authoritarian state. Whole cities are put under lockdown as the state mandates the cancelations of long-distance trains and busses, alongside the enforcement of extended vacations from a usually festive but currently subdued Chinese New Year's holiday. The state essentially has banned the movement of people in a bid to contain the contagion.
Whether such a drastic move is necessary or even effective is beyond the scope of this discussion, but the ability for the state to dramatically severe the basic rights of movement for millions upon millions of people in such a short time, and direct massive amount of human resources, materials for blocking traffic and checking for sickness, and ensure that private individuals and firms adhere to these policies or face severe social ostracization, is unfathomable even for people a few decades ago.
Technology, of course, plays a central role in allowing the state to project so much power in short a short notice. The power of the internet allows people to come to grips with the potential lethality of a virus even before it becomes a global epidemic, thereby quickly allowing them to get behind drastic government action. And modern transport infrastructure and software management allow materials and staff needed to combat the epidemic to get to where they need to be safely and quickly.
And yes, technology can also allow state power to be displayed in more deadly ways. The assassination of General Suleimani was made possible by high-tech drones that the Iraqi military had no power to stop or even detect despite it flying over Iraqi airspace for hundreds of kilometers. The availability of such stealthy tools allows sovereign rights of another state to be that much more easily violated, with little repercussions for the violator.
Yet, technology, and the state power that it allows for, continue to has its limits. In an epidemic, the state can throw millions of dollars into containing the disease, but to really defeat the disease requires good old fashioned research by brainy medical professionals looking through microscopes to find the vulnerability of the virus. Without well-trained professionals, the state's millions of dollars mean little at the end.
And indeed, the state can only deploy extraordinary power at extraordinary times because it plays into the sense of fear the general public has, whether it be about national security or personal health. If the common people see the state developing its power and technology but not solving the problem, they may quickly turn on the state through technology-enabled communication channels like SNS. So technology can be both a booster and a detractor of state power.
Comments
Post a Comment