FEBRUARY 10 — Robert Oppenheimer upon witnessing the detonation of the first atomic bomb, quoted from the Bhagavad Gita, “Now I am become Death, destroyer of worlds.”

For the first time, one species had the capacity to engineer its own extinction and the annihilation of much of the Earth. Just as before, so it is after the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, some of our own policy and practices have continued to become a threat to global security.

I would argue, however, that the threat facing the post-1989 world is more scattered, varied and complex while our policy has been unclear and bumbling, thus making the state of global security worse today than it was pre-1989.

Power is less concentrated on nation states today as compared to pre-1989. Admittedly, states will continue to play an important role but other non-state actors, specifically militant groups will have an enlarged influence on global security.

Diffusion of power through technology has led to the rise of non-state actors. The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), for example, have utilised social media shrewdly for recruitment, propaganda and psychological warfare.

Reports of hundreds of European citizens fighting in the Middle East for ISIS have caused some soul-searching in the halls of power in European capitals. Social media enables militant groups to extend their message directly to a large number of individuals.

Given the vulnerability of some individuals, this has led to a fairly successful campaign of recruitment by ISIS. Thousands, if not millions of Britons shuddered when they heard the British accent of “Jihadi John.”

The deliberate act of using Jihadi John in the video is to enlarge the scope of their propaganda to as many Westerners as possible. Some commentators have argued that ISIS’s tactical usage of technology is calculated to attract Western armed response against them.

This perpetuates their argument that Western nations are at war with Muslims and that ISIS alone are the defenders of the faith. The fact that an organized group of individuals are able to use technology to threaten some of the most powerful countries in the world illustrates the diffusion of power. Technology has become a tool to disperse influence.

Before the fall of the Berlin Wall, as is obvious throughout history, countries or empires would go to war with one another. It is quite rare to see an example of non-state actors figuring into a direct war with a nation state before 1989.

During the Cold War, the US and Soviet Union never went directly to war with one another, partly due to the threat of mutually assured destruction (MAD). There were a number of proxy wars where both empires would give various aids to their client states or groups in multiple fronts.

But indeed, these proxy wars revolve around territories or countries, not militant groups. Even when the US decides to give aid to rebel groups such as the Contras in Nicaragua in the 1980s, it is with the intention that their ally would win and gain power in a nation state, at the expense of Soviet Union’s ally, which is the Sandinista. This illustrates the centrality of nation states in global security.

After the September 11, 2001 attack, militant groups became more prominent in global security. President George W. Bush’s decision to declare the War on Terror is a clear indication of the threat that militant groups pose against nation states.

One of the strongest justifications that President Bush invoked in the attack against Afghanistan is the Taliban government was harbouring terrorists. The rise of non-state actors, specifically militant groups, driven partly by the advancement in technology has diffused power.

This has altered the nature of risks in global security. Risks are more varied, complex and scattered thus worsening the state of global security.

The expansion of the role of non-state actors, specifically militant groups, is a cause for worry. It essentially signifies a democratization of force.

If, before 1989, it was fair to say that the use of force in global security was monopolized by states, this is not the case today. In fact, a group of organized individuals with specific political aims are able to undermine the security of states and shape the contours of global security.

The role of technology, specifically social media, has amplified the power of these militant groups. Their message is now able to influence public perception thus indirectly influencing national policies.

More varied, scattered and complex risks translate into an increase in the number and magnitude of unknown variables in the global security equation. Therefore, diffusion of power through technology has led to the worsening state of global security today compared to before the fall of the Berlin Wall.

* This is the personal opinion of the writer or organisation and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail Online.