What do we mean by an ideal State? Max Weber defines it as a political organisation with a centralised political structure. Ian Brownlie defines it as a legal person, which is recognised by United Nations. However, there are many groups who live under stateless communities that don’t actually come under the United Nations order.
Historically, there has been an inherent conflict between the State and the man. In academia, Rousseau’s ‘Social Contract’ and Herbert Spencer’s ‘Man Versus The State’ provide significant analysis. When such departures arise, people often give up their consent to such a State – often due to ideological and politically motivated differences.
In anarchism, a State has been seen as an instrument of violence. The critique of the State can be best understood by the works of Noam Chomsky. His definition of “rogue states” plays a prominent role in today’s policy planning and analysis in our world order. Iraq crises, according to him, are the latest examples.
Nixon’s “madman theory” boldly outlines the use of violence by a state on an international scale: “our enemies should recognise that we are crazed and unpredictable, with extraordinary destructive force at our command, so they will bend to our will in fear. The concept was apparently devised in Israel in the 1950s by the governing Labour Party, whose leaders “preached in favour of acts of madness.”
His another work, “State-Corporate Complex” states the work of economist, Thomas Ferguson, what he calls as the investment theory of politics, where the US elections, in Obama’s first presidential campaign in particular, are occasions in which the coalition of private investors coalesce to invest to control the state. Chomsky recently concluded that Obama’s bailout programs were mostly a bargain, which were awfully executed and saved by the taxpayer, and were mostly a giveaway to Wall Street Executives, who were actually his bankers for election campaigns. These developments have been analysed where public opinion and public policy don’t converge in the meaningful affairs of the state.
The role of United States in foreign policy has been most destructive over the period of time. Chomsky has analysed the Latin American subjection in detail where he characterises what a bad state can do to achieve its means, apply double standards and can justify violence at a grand scale – United States held friendly elections in many ‘client states’, convincing the population that the intervention is well justified by inducing means of state terror to control the public opinion.
The elections in El Salvador and Guatemala in 1982 and 1984 respectively were truly demonstrative of this development. The election of Nicaragua, however, was in contrast to this development, as United States wanted to overthrow the ruling regime – this case would be justified by keeping Nicaragua election in an unfavourable light, by legitimising the Sadinistas for not winning an election, and even making a case for funding a private army.
Nicaragua, El Salvador and Guatemala are excellent examples where freedom of speech, assembly, press, organisation of intermediate groups were questioned, and the practice of fielding candidates for running into office and the climate of fear was introduced by United States into its client states and countries hostile towards US foreign policy – particularly in the ’80s.
One of the most inhumane acts done by these Latin American states, which were backed by the US, was the introduction of ‘coercion packages’, where voting requirement was mandatory, and non voters were fined as much as five quetzals (1.25$).
The US media, during Reagan administration, portrayed the murders done by the regimes of Lucas Garcia, Rion Montt and Meija Victores as an integration into the so called ‘free world alliance’ that time. Rebel disruption was a central to this tumultuous commotion in Salvadoran election. Many rebels opposed these developments, but voting by the people was the index of a democratic triumph and rebel defeat.
But in case of Nicaragua, it was the opposite – the rebels were good guys, and the elections held by the bad guys was condemned in advance. In terms of media propaganda, El Salvador was an example where food shortages, church opposition and a deteriorating transport system also didn’t make news. The case of destruction of Cambodia by United States aircraft machinery was ancillary to the goal of maintaining relationship with its client state in South Vietnam. In the study of “Cambodia, Holocaust and Modern Conscience,” Chomsky analysed that there was a killing silence of the west in the face of Khmer Rouge atrocities.
The above analysis of United States as a rogue state is that it was a case which pursued war under the guise of justice and peace, mainly executed by extreme right-wing parties, with a patriotic imperative in mind aimed for world supremacy.
War, authoritarianism, control of weaker and smaller states by stronger states hold primal responsibilities in modern imperialistic states. In such cases states are viewed as ideal by its state actors, but the repercussions it has created in the world order have been mainly falsely portrayed in the media.