Failed/Weak States
as a Security Issue
In
the articles read for class both Barnett and Moore made similar conclusions
about failed/weak states. Both authors acknowledged that there is a gap, and
there is a need to focus and close that gap. Barnett makes the argument that
instability leads to failed states and terrorism. This has been seen in many
regions around the world. Moore makes the argument that rich countries need to
make things more accessible to the countries that are too poor to help
themselves. The article provided above, also touches on these problems, and discusses
how failed states are a cause of concern.
The article opens up with this statement:
“Failed
states that cannot provide jobs and food for their people, that have lost
chunks of territory to warlords, and that can no longer track or control their
borders, send an invitation to terrorists”
Weak states are most definitely a security issue,
because they create a fresh ground in were terrorism can grow. That becomes a
major concern, because it is easy for terrorist groups to harbor in a state
that cannot sustain itself. Failed/weak states are those that lack security,
are unsafe, involve corruption, deny the human rights of their people, barley
provide human development, and discriminate among classes and kinds of
citizens. When a state fails in providing its citizens with the essential
political goods that they need to survive, it creates fundamental human
security issues. Those people see that their state fails them by their
instability to perform their functions adequately. Since failed/weak states
lack so many of these essential functions, they tend to be violent. That is why
they should be labeled as a security issue.
Failed/weak states are deeply conflicted and dangerous. They typically
are the setting for armed revolts and hostile insurgencies.
There are many things that failed/weak states need
to do to become successful strong states. One of those is that they must
provide security and safety. A state must protect its citizens from harm and
secure its borders. They must also provide the rule of law. A state needs the
ability to resolve conflict without any armed conflict or physical coercion. They
must respect human rights and allow their citizens to participate fully in politics
and the political process. Citizens take pride and want to be represented by individuals
they themselves chose. Economic development is an essential function that
failed/weak states must provide. They need to be open to international trade,
keeping inflation low, and have a productive environment that stimulates economic
growth. Lastly, they must focus heavily on human development. They must provide
the highest level of education and health services to its citizens.
The article above calls
failed states a non-traditional security threat. One of those reasons is due to
the different factors listed above. However, failed states also don’t exercise
full control over their land, which allows the harboring of terrorist
organizations. Terrorist groups like to install fear and have control, which is
why a failed state is a point of attraction for them.
Terrorist groups would never be able to function in fully working
states, which is why they seek areas that are not being ruled. This is a
security issue because once those terrorist organizations start training and
developing weapons of mass destruction, it becomes harder to find ways to
combat them.
One of the greatest challenges
failed/weak states provide as a security issue, is the aspect of human
security. Failed/weal states fail with human development, which creates
instability within a community. Health issues increase daily in these areas and
it becomes difficult for locals to deal with it. Human security in the article
is referred to “free of fear,” and failed states continue to lack in these
important areas. They struggle with meeting any of them and thus makes them a
security issue and should be a huge concern.
Failed or weak states definitely gives terrorists a place to hide but as we've seen through the numbers in class, terrorists are literally all over the world. There is someone recruiting ISIS members all the way in Australia. The terrorist attacks were carried out by French citizens. And not all weak states have large terrorist groups residing in them.
ReplyDeleteEven if becoming a strong state would solve the issue of terrorism, how do you think each weak/failed state in the world could reach that level? Do you think the West/developed countries should be involved?
Failed/weak states don't all harbor terrorist groups, however, they are locations that make it way easier to take over and reside there. Reaching the level of a strong state for these failed/weak states is extremely difficult. I think developed countries should take interest and be involved in helping them develop and grow their economy so that they can be better off on their own in the long run. I included a whole section above on what failed/weak states must do to become a strong state, however, I would say that with the assistance of stronger developed countries this would become easier for them to achieve.
ReplyDeleteLike you said in the last paragraph, some of the fixes you mention above require a lot of funding that an economically weak state will not be able to provide for itself. If intervention occurs, it will most likely be a foreign wealthy nation to provide the help. What problems arise from this? Is there a way to provide foreign aid without the fear of an overbearing Western influence?
ReplyDeleteAs you mentioned, the problem with this would be that the West would highly feel inclined to have an overpowering influence in that region. However, one way to provide foreign aid without the overbearing influence would be creating institutions that would specifically focus on this. They would make sure that aid is being received where needed and making sure that the West doesn't over step in power. Strict regulations would have to be set, in order for these institutions to successfully do this. Regulations such as how many foreign aid can be handed out, the time frame of them, and limitations on what the West can and cannot do.
DeleteGreat post! I agree with you that weak states do pose a security threat. Although not all weak states are ridden with terrorism, there is a sufficient amount that are. Do you think these states would even be open to welcoming help from the West?And if the states refused help, would we be justified in not doing anything, knowing that the states could be a potential threat?
ReplyDeleteI don't think its a question on whether or not they would be open to welcoming help from the best, rather a question on whether they should? My answer to that one would be yes. They should want help from the West, because they can provide them with financial aid and border and security control. They need the support of the West to get ahead. It wouldn't be justified to not help knowing the condition that these weak/failed states are in. It should be a moral responsibility, because sitting back with arms crossed wont resolve anything.
Delete