around the world could see pictures of the fire at the Chernobyl nuclear plant, transmitted by a commercial satellite, while the statements of the Soviet government were downgrading the event. Many of these spectators may have realized that the authorities of the former Soviet Union were in fact impotent as well as intransigent, since they could neither prevent the diffusion of the pictures nor control the immediate effects of the catastrophe; nor would they admit that their nuclear technology was generally most hazardous. Politicians and officials around the world kept assuring their populaces that the security standards in the local nuclear plants were much higher than in the Soviet case, and therefore similar catastrophes were not to be expected. While this may or may not be true, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) have established, time and again, that the risks of nuclear plants are generally much higher than state authorities around the world seem to assume. Moreover, the Chernobyl catastrophe has made it quite evident that nuclear fallout does not respect state boundaries, and that the modern state can no longer protect its citizens from perils that originate in other states' territories. Viewed against this background, Wong's article? which questions the functions of states in the modern world and inquires into the causes underlying the ongoing loyalty of citizens toward these states?addresses some of the most urgent contemporary issues. While I fully share Wong's concern for these problems, as well as his conviction that evolutionary theory may be helpful in understanding some of the underpinnings of political processes, it seems to me that some of his points call for careful consideration.
Search from 250 M+ research papersSearch from 250 M+ research papers
Feb 1, 1997
J L Granatstein + 1
