Page |1

DHARMASHASTRA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY,

(Session 2022-2023)

Topic

“Comment on Catherine Connolly’s Piece on War

Submitted To: Submitted

Ms. Swati Singh Parmar Sanskrati Jain

[Assistant Professor of Section B

Law] BALLB/116/20
 Page |2

Semester -VI
 Page |3

REVIEW
The article discusses how the COVID-19 pandemic has been frequently framed as a war,
particularly in the United States, with politicians, policymakers, journalists, and the public
using the language of war to describe the crisis. Many leaders and public figures have framed
it as a "war" against an "invisible enemy." The author presents examples of how President
Donald Trump has referred to the pandemic as a war and invoked the Defense Production Act
to combat it. The article also critiques the use of war metaphors in relation to the pandemic,
pointing out how they can be problematic and misleading. The language of war and conflict
is often employed in times of crisis to mobilize collective action and create a sense of
urgency and solidarity. However, the use of war analogies can also have unintended
consequences, such as promoting aggression, blame, and division, and can detract from the
need for evidence-based policies and scientific solutions. The author argues that a surgical
approach, rather than a war approach, may be more effective in combatting the pandemic.
The reference to the virus as the ‘Chinese virus’ or ‘Chinese-originated COVID-19’ can also
be problematic, as it reinforces stereotypes and discrimination against Asian communities and
may fuel racist attitudes and actions. The World Health Organization (WHO) has issued
guidance on naming diseases, which discourages the use of geographic locations or people's
names, as it may stigmatize certain groups or countries. The author says it is essential to
consider the potential impact of language in framing public discourse and shaping public
attitudes towards the pandemic and its management. As such, it is vital to promote clear and
accurate communication that is inclusive, respectful, and based on scientific evidence.
The author contends the use of war metaphors and language of violence and conflict in
response to the coronavirus pandemic is not only inaccurate but also unhelpful. The
relationship between war and disease is not benign, and war can exacerbate public health
crises. War and infectious disease have a long history of being intertwined, and war itself
should be viewed as a public health problem as it is often at the root of violent deaths,
chronic, infectious, and psychological health problems, and generates refugee movements,
mental health crises, infectious epidemics, and chronic ailments. In addition, the
displacement of people due to war can lead to the spread of disease both within refugee
populations and in areas where they seek refuge. It is also important to acknowledge the
historical role that war and colonialism have played in spreading disease, particularly among
Indigenous populations. Recognizing war as a public health problem can help us to address
the root causes of disease and work towards preventing future outbreaks.
 Page |4

The appeal of the war metaphor is connected to basic social values and their everyday
practices, such as community, patriarchy, and masculinity. For Western states, especially the
United States, the war metaphor is connected to everyday practices of imperialism. The US
obsession with militarized responses to all kinds of threats, such as the war on drugs and war
on terror, has serious and far-reaching effects across the globe. The use of war metaphors in
response to the pandemic is troubling as it demonstrates how the past nineteen years, since
the advent of the global war on terror, have shaped our thinking and responses. Such
declarations of war delay or preclude the pursuit of effective solutions to problems facing the
international community and the United States. The consequences of metaphors are
significant, including the curbing of critical discourse on issues, the perception of anti-war
sentiment as unpatriotic or treasonous and curtailment critical discourse and delay effective
solutions to the pandemic.

The author highlights the issue of how powerful states, particularly those in the Global North,
interpret international law to facilitate their foreign policy objectives. In the case of US
sanctions on Iran, the author argues that they cannot be seen as anything other than a
powerful state imposing its will and weight on a weaker state, leading to the suffering of its
civilian population. The US sanctions on Iran have had a devastating effect on the country's
economy and healthcare system. The authors contend that sanctions are a form of violence.
The author also draws attention to the use of physical force by the US, such as airstrikes in
Somalia, which have caused harm to innocent people, despite being described as "precision"
or "surgical" approaches.

The author questions the legitimacy of such conduct and emphasizes that questioning the
legality alone is not enough. The use of the term "war" to describe the coronavirus pandemic
should be criticized given the destructive nature of warfare and the associated harm it causes.
The passage suggests a need for greater scrutiny and accountability for the actions of
powerful states in international affairs. The authors argue that such language obscures the
true impact of US military actions on civilian populations.
The author concludes that the dangers of using language and tools of war in response to the
COVID-19 pandemic, including the potential for racist intimidation and violence, anti-
immigration measures, and nationalist, militarized responses. The use of terms like "Chinese
virus" and "Wuhan virus" can contribute to racist intimidation and violence, and calls for
greater anti-immigration measures. Instead of approaching the pandemic with a defensive and
nationalist mindset, we should prioritize planning that is motivated by solidarity and
 Page |5

compassion. It is important to recognize the ways in which the pandemic has highlighted
existing global inequalities and the suffering experienced by those already marginalized by
violent capitalist imperialism, such as through sanctions and military warfare. We should
strive to express solidarity with these communities as well, through gestures big and small.
The author argues that planning and action in response to the pandemic should be motivated
by solidarity and compassion rather than fear and defense against perceived enemies. The
author also points out the need for solidarity with those who were already suffering under
violent capitalist imperialism, including those under sanctions or military warfare. The
message is that while social distancing may be causing feelings of alienation, we should not
forget to express solidarity with all those who are suffering, whether due to the pandemic or
under violent capitalist imperialism, sanctions, under military warfare, and mor other forms
of oppression.
CONCLUSION AND AUTHOR’S OBSERVATION
This article provides a critical analysis of the impact of the pandemic on global politics and
the legal framework that governs it. As seen earlier article argues that the pandemic has
intensified the structural violence and inequalities in the world, particularly in the Global
South, and has exposed the shortcomings of the international legal system in responding to
global crises. The author’s arguments in the article are highly evident in the ongoing COVID-
19 pandemic, which continues to ravage countries around the world. The pandemic has
highlighted the global inequalities in access to healthcare, technology, and resources, and has
exposed the structural violence that exists in the world. The article's analysis of the
relationship between war and the pandemic is particularly relevant in the context of the
geopolitical tensions that have arisen due to the pandemic.
Furthermore, the article's critique of the international legal system's response to the pandemic
is also relevant today. The uneven distribution of vaccines, the lack of access to essential
medical supplies, and the inadequate financial support for developing countries are all issues
that continue to persist in the current scenario. The article's argument for a more inclusive
and just legal framework that considers the needs of the marginalized communities in the
Global South remains crucial in the current context. Its insights on the relationship between
war and the pandemic, and its call for a more inclusive and just legal framework that
considers the needs of marginalized communities in the Global South, are particularly
pertinent in the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.
Page |6