|
| The
Failed States Index |
|
|
By FOREIGN POLICY & the Fund for Peace
|
|
|
 |
| July/August
2005 |
 |
|
About 2 billion people live in countries that are in
danger of collapse. In the first annual Failed States Index,
FOREIGN POLICY and the Fund for Peace rank the countries about
to go over the brink.
|
America is now threatened less by conquering states than we are by
failing ones.” That was the conclusion of the 2002 U.S. National
Security Strategy. For a country whose foreign policy in the 20th
century was dominated by the struggles against powerful states such as
Germany, Japan, and the Soviet Union, the U.S. assessment is striking.
Nor is the United States alone in diagnosing the problem. U.N.
Secretary-General Kofi Annan has warned that “ignoring failed states
creates problems that sometimes come back to bite us.” French
President Jacques Chirac has spoken of “the threat that failed states
carry for the world’s equilibrium.” World leaders once worried about
who was amassing power; now they worry about the absence of it.
|
| Failed states have made a remarkable odyssey from the
periphery to the very center of global politics. During the Cold War,
state failure was seen through the prism of superpower conflict and was
rarely addressed as a danger in its own right. In the 1990s, “failed
states” fell largely into the province of humanitarians and human
rights activists, although they did begin to consume the attention of
the world’s sole superpower, which led interventions in Somalia, Haiti,
Bosnia, and Kosovo. For so-called foreign-policy realists, however,
these states and the problems they posed were a distraction from
weightier issues of geopolitics. |
| Now, it seems, everybody cares. The dangerous exports of
failed states—whether international terrorists, drug barons, or
weapons arsenals—are the subject of endless discussion and concern.
For all the newfound attention, however, there is still uncertainty
about the definition and scope of the problem. How do you know a failed
state when you see one? Of course, a government that has lost control of
its territory or of the monopoly on the legitimate use of force has
earned the label. But there can be more subtle attributes of failure.
Some regimes, for example, lack the authority to make collective
decisions or the capacity to deliver public services. In other
countries, the populace may rely entirely on the black market, fail to
pay taxes, or engage in large-scale civil disobedience. Outside
intervention can be both a symptom of and a trigger for state collapse.
A failed state may be subject to involuntary restrictions of its
sovereignty, such as political or economic sanctions, the presence of
foreign military forces on its soil, or other military constraints, such
as a no-fly zone. |
| How many states are at serious risk of state failure? The
World Bank has identified about 30 “low-income countries under
stress,” whereas Britain’s Department for International Development
has named 46 “fragile” states of concern. A report commissioned by
the CIA has put the number of failing states at about 20. |
| To present a more precise picture of the scope and
implications of the problem, the Fund for Peace, an independent research
organization, and FOREIGN POLICY have conducted a global ranking of weak
and failing states. Using 12 social, economic, political, and military
indicators, we ranked 60 states in order of their vulnerability to
violent internal conflict. (For each indicator, the Fund for Peace
computed scores using software that analyzed data from tens of thousands
of international and local media sources from the last half of 2004. For
a complete discussion of the 12 indicators, please go to www.ForeignPolicy.com
or www.fundforpeace.org.)
The resulting index provides a profile of the new world disorder of the
21st century and demonstrates that the problem of weak and failing
states is far more serious than generally thought. About 2 billion
people live in insecure states, with varying degrees of vulnerability to
widespread civil conflict. |
| The instability that the index diagnoses has many faces.
In the Democratic Republic of the Congo or Somalia, state failure has
been apparent for years, manifested by armed conflict, famine, disease
outbreaks, and refugee flows. In other cases, however, instability is
more elusive. Often, corrosive elements have not yet triggered open
hostilities, and pressures may be bubbling just below the surface. Large
stretches of lawless territory exist in many countries in the index, but
that territory has not always been in open revolt against state
institutions. |
| Conflict may be concentrated in local territories seeking
autonomy or secession (as in the Philippines and Russia). In other
countries, instability takes the form of episodic fighting, drug mafias,
or warlords dominating large swaths of territory (as in Afghanistan,
Colombia, and Somalia). State collapse sometimes happens suddenly, but
often the demise of the state is a slow and steady deterioration of
social and political institutions (Zimbabwe and Guinea are good examples).
Some countries emerging from conflict may be on the mend but in danger
of backsliding (Sierra Leone and Angola). The World Bank found that,
within five years, half of all countries emerging from civil unrest fall
back into conflict in a cycle of collapse (Haiti and Liberia). |
| The 10 most at-risk countries in the index have already
shown clear signs of state failure. Ivory Coast, a country cut in half
by civil war, is the most vulnerable to disintegration; it would
probably collapse completely if U.N. peacekeeping forces pulled out. It
is followed by the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Sudan, Iraq,
Somalia, Sierra Leone, Chad, Yemen, Liberia, and Haiti. The index
includes others whose instability is less widely acknowledged, including
Bangladesh (17th), Guatemala (31st), Egypt (38th), Saudi Arabia (45th),
and Russia (59th). |
| Weak states are most prevalent in Africa, but they also
appear in Asia, Eastern Europe, Latin America, and the Middle East.
Experts have for years discussed an “arc of instability”—an
__expression that came into use in the 1970s to refer to a “Muslim
Crescent” extending from Afghanistan to the “Stans” in the
southern part of the former Soviet Union. Our study suggests that the
concept is too narrow. The geography of weak states reveals a
territorial expanse that extends from Moscow to Mexico City, far wider
than an “arc” would suggest, and not limited to the Muslim world. |
| The index does not provide any easy answers for those
looking to shore up countries on the brink. Elections are almost
universally regarded as helpful in reducing conflict. However, if they
are rigged, conducted during active fighting, or attract a low turnout,
they can be ineffective or even harmful to stability. Electoral
democracy appears to have had only a modest impact on the stability of
states such as Iraq, Rwanda, Kenya, Venezuela, Nigeria, and Indonesia.
Ukraine ranks as highly vulnerable in large part because of last
year’s disputed election. |
| What are the clearest early warning signs of a failing
state? Among the 12 indicators we use, two consistently rank near the
top. Uneven development is high in almost all the states in the index,
suggesting that inequality within states—and not merely poverty—increases
instability. Criminalization or delegitimization of the state, which
occurs when state institutions are regarded as corrupt, illegal, or
ineffective, also figured prominently. Facing this condition, people
often shift their allegiances to other leaders—opposition parties,
warlords, ethnic nationalists, clergy, or rebel forces. Demographic
factors, especially population pressures stemming from refugees,
internally displaced populations, and environmental degradation, are
also found in most at-risk countries, as are consistent human rights
violations. Identifying the signs of state failure is easier than
crafting solutions, but pinpointing where state collapse is likely is a
necessary first step. |
