When Borders Aren’t Enough: Power, Politics, and the Modern Assault on Autonomy

An epochal building block of a nation’s foundation is its sovereignty. Free from external influence, countries have the authority to govern and control all affairs within their borders. In a similar vein, countries are prohibited from meddling in one another’s domestic affairs.

Illustration by The Geostrata

However, states continue to confront rising threats to their sovereignty as a result of global leaders’ national aspirations. A country’s sovereignty has historically and primarily been endangered by the use of force.

Alexander the Great’s armed interference to occupy vast territories from Greece to India in the ancient era, the fall of Byzantine Empire and the Ottoman intervention in the course of the medieval period, Napoleon’s military campaigns reshaping Europe in the modern era, the world wars and proxy wars brought on by cold war interventions demonstrate how leaders use military might in pursuit of their national interests.

HOW IS IT BEING CHALLENGED?

In international politics, States are independent, rational actors who are free to decide their actions. Their power struggle may be overt or covert. Realists such as Kenneth Waltz characterised international society as anarchic, where there is a lack of order or insecurity. In such a setup, states are always trying to survive.

Modern-day threats to sovereignty have transcended traditional notions of territorial integrity. States apply direct or indirect methods for gaining control over other states. Such methods include inducing proxy conflicts, economic means, cybersecurity and technological threats, non-state actors and internal destabilisation.

The improvement of its power position, both externally and internally, becomes the dominant objective of a state. This article shall look at some methods utilised by states to infringe upon the sovereignty of member states and try to provide a few case studies to back the claims.

PROXY CONFLICTS - It is commonly defined as a war between regional states where each side has a supporting superpower providing indirect military assistance without putting boots on the ground. From the transactional model to the exploitative, the overarching component of proxy conflict is a superpower’s indirect support to advance either an individual or mutual interest.

Case: The impacts of proxy war on individual state sovereignty are exemplified in the Yemen Civil War, which began in 2014 when Houthi insurgents–Shi'ite rebels with links to Iran and a history of rising against the Sunni government–took control of Yemen's capital and largest city, Sana’a. Two major players have since emerged in this conflict : 

1. IRAN - Iranian support for Shia armed groups and, more importantly Houthis is motivated by their ideological alignment of opposition to Israel and the West. Yemen’s geostrategic location along the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, a critical oil shipping lane that links the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden, gives it outsize leverage over global shipping as a crucial part of this opposition. Cultivating ties with these groups has allowed Tehran to pursue its alternative political order of “Axis of Resistance”.

2. SAUDI ARABIA - After the Houthis took control of Sana’a in 2014, the then-president Abd Rabbu Mansour Hadi was put under house arrest. Saudi leaders backed Hadi for many reasons. Alarmed by the rise of the Houthis at their southern borders, they have sought to ensure control of Bab el-Mandeb, which facilitates the movement of millions of barrels of oil per day for Saudi Arabia. Control over Yemen would allow Saudi Arabia to construct an oil pipeline from its southern border through Yemen’s eastern province, Al Mahra, into the Indian Ocean, easing its dependence on the Strait of Hormuz, which borders Iran.

Yemen continues to live in poverty, and its humanitarian crisis is one of the worst in the world. Torture, arbitrary arrests, and forced disappearances are among the alleged war crimes perpetrated by both sides.

Economic Means - Rich nations use economic sanctions as their most favoured tool to respond to foreign policy challenges. Travel bans, trade restrictions, arms embargoes and asset freezes are used to coerce, punish, deter or shame entities that threaten their interests. Considered a form of intervention, sanctions are generally viewed as a lower-cost, lower-risk course of action between diplomacy and war. Sanctions take precedence when military action is not feasible.

The Case - U.S. sanctions on Iran are arguably one of the most extensive and comprehensive sets of sanctions on any country. The sanctions target Iran’s energy sector, financial sector, arms trade to or from Iran and components of Iran’s government, including the Supreme Leader and the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps.

Since the early 1980s, Iran’s Islamic Republic has been under US economic sanctions as a punishment for alleged international transgressions.

During this period, the theocratic regime has moved forward on many economic fronts, but has been effectively held back from reaching the pre-revolution level of national prosperity.

Iranians’ right to health, education, and other human rights aspects have been adversely impacted. Pharmaceutical and medical equipment do not fall under international sanctions, but Iran continues to face shortages of drugs for the treatment of illnesses–Cancer, Thalassemia, Multiple Sclerosis–because it is not allowed to use international payment systems. The impact of such unilateral sanctions has contributed to a volatile currency and high inflation, which has significantly reduced the purchasing power of the Iranian people.

Cybersecurity and Technological Threats - Across the democratic spectrum, countries are erecting their own digital borders. But advanced and sophisticated technology continues to pose a threat to sovereignty, denying services or interfering in political processes like elections. The Stuxnet, also called the world’s first cyber weapon, was developed by Israel to slow Iran’s growing nuclear capabilities. It revealed how technology can reach across borders, do physical harm and stain sovereignty. 

The Case - The recent Russian cyber attacks targeting Ukraine’s critical infrastructure and the disruption of the Viasat Inc’s KA-SAT satellite have attempted to degrade, disrupt and discredit the Ukrainian Government. The Russian Federation has coordinated destructive and disruptive cyberattacks aimed at Ukraine, network penetration and espionage in targeted countries that are perceived as Ukraine’s allies and cyber-influence operations designed to influence people globally.

The damaging and destabilising impacts of the use of cyber attacks in the war in Ukraine are exacerbated by the large-scale participation of non-traditional and non-state actors, including state-backed hackers and patriotic amateurs or volunteers, in a domain that traditionally sees exclusive engagement of states. The attack on Viasat Inc.’s KA-SAT satellite led to a disruption in the supply of internet access to people and companies in not only Ukraine but across Europe.

Such attacks have exposed the civilian population and critical civilian infrastructure to harm, as essential services for society and economies depend on such infrastructure. The targeting of civilian infrastructure affects civilians not directly involved in the conflict, hence undermining the rules-based international order anchored in the framework of responsible state behaviour in cyberspace.

Non-State Actors and Internal Destabilisation - Traditional thinkers considered the state as the most important actor in international relations. Besides the state, the stage of IR is now occupied also by a group of non-conventional players, popularly known as the non-state actors. They often influence the course of international affairs.

They manipulate multilateral decisions and, in some extreme cases, can even supersede the states' policies and programmes. Multinational Corporations, Intergovernmental Organisations and International Non-Governmental Organisations constitute non-state actors.

With enormous economic clout, the MNCs can influence and alter the course of domestic and international politics, and have thus become very significant actors today. Many analysts see them as 'agents' of their countries of origin and their governments.

The Case - We are increasingly entering a world where gatherings such as The Davos Summit are not laughable billionaire playgrounds. Corporations are put at the heart of this gathering because they provide the possibilities of agile governance, drawing on the private sector’s experience of adapting to a fast-changing environment. Governments are hence encouraged to tackle every issue by allying with the private sector via public-private partnerships.

Multinationals–particularly US tech companies–have emerged as a global political force in their own right and have led to a loss of authority among nation-states. Never has a small group of companies held such an expansive influence over humanity. In today’s liberal democracies, companies like Microsoft, Alphabet, Meta and SpaceX can introduce their own public policies with little to no scrutiny.

The Cambridge Analytica-Facebook Scandal potentially changed the course of the 2016 US presidential elections and the Brexit vote. Cambridge Analytica harvested millions of profiles of US voters, in one of the tech giant’s biggest ever data breaches. It showed trivial things such as posts, comments, likes and shares to gather sensitive information about users such as race, gender, orientation, as well as provide a hint as to the political affiliation of a person.

SpaceX, established by PayPal co-founder and Tesla owner Elon Musk, is leading the effort to colonise Mars. Apple’s market capitalisation in 2023 was smaller than the GDP of only 6 nations–the US, China, Japan, Germany, the UK and India.

Taking back sovereignty from multinationals will require international cooperation. Otherwise, the balance of power will continue to tilt in corporate behemoths’ favour for some time to come.

IMPLICATIONS

The world has and continues to face broad implications of elements that endanger state sovereignty. A single attack to sovereignty can create a cascading effect rocking a country’s foundation.

While trade wars damage industries, disrupt trade flows and create economic disparity, fostering tensions, proxy conflicts provide a breeding ground for extremists to thrive in lawlessness. Additionally, non-state actors employ misinformation and social media manipulation tactics, thereby sowing discord in communities and nations. The rise of digital infrastructure keeps governments exposed to cyber terrorism.

Responses to such breaches of sovereignty are varied. Some countries choose to retaliate with military might or economic sanctions, while others choose not to react. For instance, Russia’s territorial aggression against Ukraine invited massive sanctions on top Kremlin officials.

Today, the concept of sovereignty is under considerable pressure. The world is riding on the evolution of technology, and the traditional risks to sovereignty have evolved along with it.

The latest undiplomatic talk by the US President Donald Trump, of reclaiming the Panama Canal and annexing Greenland and even Canada, is compelling in the sense that his rhetoric straddles the line between direct and indirect threat to the autonomy of a nation. Such tactics are aimed at disorienting the negotiating partner to secure a better deal for the “real goals” that the president has. Hence, the notion of sovereignty is ever evolving as new inroads to breach state authority are being cultivated.

---

BY DEVANSHI SHARMA

TEAM GEOSTRATA

info@thegeostrata.com