Supporting Failing States

When a state begins to gradually become weaker and weaker, almost on the verge of failing, it garners the attention of other larger, more successful states. The larger states, usually the superpowers, attempt to provide aid to the failing states and begin to 'manage' their activities. As we have discussed, the main reasons for failed states lies within an unstable governmental body, unequal distribution of rights and wealth, and the overall legitimacy/effectiveness of those leading the nation. By getting involved with failing states other nations, such as the United States, hope to establish their beliefs in that state as well as gain another ally. I believe, however, that by doing this those larger states are only further decreasing the weaker states chances of success.

The biggest threat posed by accepting the aid of another state is that the weaker state runs the risk of becoming dependent on that state. If the United States began shipping a plethora of food, clothing, and medical supplies to a failing state, that state would probably become completely reliant on the United States. If they can't find the means to produce food and clothing themselves because they've only been accepting hand-outs than they have essentially just become a colony under the larger state supporting them. To put it into clearer terms, if a failing state is totally dependent on a successful state, that successful state now has control over the smaller nation as they have become their source of life, in a sense.

Larger states also have the tendency to make weaker states undergo a 'regime change.' A regime change is when one state changes or modifies another states current form of government, typically using military force in case there is any resistance. An example of this would be the United States involvement in countries such as Bolivia. No military force was used, but when Bolivia announced they were looking for a possible change in their governmental structure, the United States gladly stepped in and helped them establish a democracy similar to that of our own. The problem with this is that the larger state will then try to constantly have oversight in regards to the governments legislation and policy changes. Therefore creating a sort of hidden-hand dictatorship of the weaker state.

As we can see, though intentions may be good, a larger state trying to save a weaker or failing state can easily result in the state failing, or becoming a potential colonization of said larger state. It should be said that aid to another state can be helpful and possibly quite effective, but only if it is done in careful moderation. If not, the possibility of failure is almost imminent.  

Failed State Economies: Somalia

Matt Hunt

IR 170

Professor Shirk

10/22/15

In class discussion, we have covered the concept of a failed state, noting that one of the distinctive qualities of failed states is their lack of economic development. By labeling failed and fragile states, trade and investment within those sovereigns becomes less likely, and it is more difficult for their economies to rebound. Somalia, as one of the most fragile states, is not overtly considered as advancing its economic sector. However, the country is currently striving to bolster its economy despite the many hurdles that come with its fragile state status. It is because foreign private interests are involved in Somalia that hope exists for its economic future.

Currently, the economic state of Somalia is far behind that of other developing nations. This economic stagnation is in part due to the failure of other nations and organizations to recognize the sovereign. Problems that result from looking at Somalia as illegitimate include the inability for businesses within the state to have documentation that would allow them to participate in the global market (IRINnews). Another significant problem is that Somalia is not part of any recognized international trade organizations. In combination with not being on trading relations with the US or the European Union, Somalia is not among the countries within the World Trade Organization. Somalia needs to have these international trade partnerships in order to be economically successful.

Up until Somalia's independence in 1960, its economy was largely driven by small pastoral farmers. However, since political power was concentrated in the urban centers, these farmers had little to do in the formation of Somalian policy. Land tenure laws in the 1970's and 1980's created a drastic redistribution of land. Land became consistently transferred to businessmen and the political elite. Discontent among local farmers was a factor for the start of the Somalian civil war of the 1990's (Powell).

We can learn from this dynamic of socio-economic instability that led to political discontent and apply this lesson to fostering better future engagements between investors and local populations. Somalis should be vigilant of overseas investors who are looking to make profit from the country’s resources. The possibility for exploitation is significant, especially in a state where corruption is rampant. Further emphasis will need to be put on making sure that money trickles back down to local businesses. Microfinance can be a valuable tool in assisting small, local businesses within Somalia.

Despite these difficulties, there is reason to believe that Somalia's economy will improve within the next decade. The International Monetary Fund, which works to foster financial stability among its members, resumed relations with Somalia after 22 years. Furthermore, foreign investors have taken interest in Somalia’s mobile technology industry. Ultimately, Somalia’s economic development will be dependent on the cooperation of outside organizations and private entrepreneurs.

Works Cited

-IRINnews. N.p., n.d. Web. 22 Oct. 2015.

-Powell, Benjamin, Ryan Ford, Ryan Nowrasteh, and And Sharing With Colleagues. "Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 67 (2008) 657–670 Somalia after State Collapse: Chaos or Improvement?" (2008): n. pag. Web.

Dictatorships and Failed States

Tomas Iturregui

            Dictatorships have always been a form of government that has received much criticism, especially from capitalist countries such as the United States. Some Dictatorships remain stable for many decades due to strength of their militaries, while many come to an end very quickly. My aim is to explain why I think dictatorships often lead to weak or failed states.

            Dictatorships often are very unstable from the start. The state is run by a single ruler or small group of people, whose word is final and caries absolute sovereignty. Dictators never give the citizens any vote or input for anything. Thus, there are bound to be large disagreements between the public and dictator. When a dictator comes to power, they are usually just looking to keep and retain as much power as possible. They aren’t usually very focused on the greater good of the state. This can lead to many problems such as human rights abuse, civil wars, lack of economic growth and many more. Those problems can signify and provide evidence that a state is becoming weak or failed.

            One example of a failed state with a dictatorship is Syria. Bashar al-Assad is in charge of the state. During the Arab Spring he ordered his troops to kill any anti-government rebels. He has even used bombs and chemical weapons on his own people. This has lead to a full out civil war, with refuges currently fleeing to Europe. Another example is Libya, a country run by Muammar Gaddafi for forty-two years. He ran a police state, which allowed no private press or political parties. He did not provide fair human rights for his citizens, while his primary concern being wealth from oil. A civil war broke out and Gaddafi was killed a few years later. Now in his wake, Libya has technically been declared a democracy but faces many problems and is viewed by the world as a failed state.

            Of course there can be dictatorships that don’t necessarily lead to a failed state. North Korea could be seen as one as it’s stable with a solid economy despite not much being known about it. But when all the dictatorships are looked at over the past century or so, it can be seen that many lead to problems such as civil wars which leads to a failed state.

Sink or Swim

Usually states are considered a weak or failed state when there are human rights atrocities, civil war, a high infant mortality rate, high crime rates, and a lack of civil rights and economic growth and development. This can be seen in different states around the world, for example Syria, the Congo, and some other states. Weak or failed states can spread instability around the region they are in, cause security problems, and cause general issues with other states near or far. These are all very big problems, but that does not mean other states have a duty to step in and help a weak or failed state; states are only responsible for themselves and should not bear the weight of “fixing” problem states.
The U.S. is seen as a state that looks out for people around the world, stepping in where there a human rights abuses, giving funding to states who are in need, and working to evolve governments for the better. Some people think the United States should keep doing this, keep giving money, help educate women and minorities of their rights, encourage small business building, etc., but I disagree. In my opinion the United States should leave well enough alone in most cases and let the problem sort itself out.

If the United States keeps stepping in and helping, those weak and failing states will just grow dependent on the help they receive. Sometimes the help is not wanted and can cause even more problems in the weak or failed state and sometimes it takes away the will of the people living there. When the United States entered Iraq and other threw Saddam at first people praised the humanitarian progress that was being made. It was after Saddam was finally gone that people started complaining about the anarchy that was left. People didn’t have basic needs met anymore, they were more oppressed than under Saddam. This is an example of the United States trying to help free an oppressed state and just making the problem work itself out.

If strong states would stop helping weak and failing states as much as they do, those states would either learn how to bring themselves around or be taken up by surrounding states. Obviously the second option would not be easy for anyone involved, but I think this “sink or swim” outlook is the one that should be adopted by states around the world.

This is not to say that we should not give asylum to people seeking to flee oppressive rulers, that would mean we had turned our back on our values. We should help people fleeing oppressive regimes, but not go into that state and change things as we see fit.

M.A.D

I will discuss the ridiculousness, yet stability of mutually assured destruction and argue that it in today’s world, it acts as the best deterrent.  The quote, "Offense is defense, defense is offense. Killing people is good, killing weapons is bad", sums up the theory of mutually assured destruction rather well.  While it may seem illogical, this thinking has been a basis for U.S. nuclear strategy for decades, and has served rather well. At the heart of the nuclear restraint is the concept of mutual assured destruction, meaning each side maintains nuclear forces sufficient to inflict devastating damage on its opponent even if the other side strikes first. The greatest deterrent to nuclear war is a strategic force that can withstand an opponent's first strike and still retaliate in kind. In this situation, neither side has an incentive to strike first, which would only arise if one side could destroy the other's weapons in a primary strike. Then a tremendous advantage would go to the side striking first. Similarly, if one side had some means of protecting its population from nuclear attack, it might also be tempted to begin nuclear warfare, because it would be reasonably safe from retaliation.

This thinking then leads to the conclusions that threatening to kill people is good because it deters nuclear attack. While threatening to destroy weapons is bad because it challenges the ability of the other side to retaliate.  An invulnerable nuclear force is the best deterrent, so offense is the best defense, and an effective anti-ballistic missile defense or an ABM upsets the balance, which means defense is offense. The acronym for mutual assured destruction, M.A.D, is very deserving.  It is truly madness that in 1972, Nixon and Brezhnev, signed an ABM Agreement which prohibited either side from defending itself against a missile attack by the other. This meant that millions of Americans were offered as the Soviet Union’s hostages in the game of nuclear strategy and in return President Nixon got the right to hold a hundred million Soviet citizens as his hostages.  This is the core of mutually assured destruction.   

How many nuclear bombs does it take to deter a nuclear attack though?  While the logical answer would be a few at the most, the United States has over 7000 separately targetable nuclear warheads.  The dramatic increase in the number of nuclear warheads is the result of several factors, but whatever the reasons, we now find ourselves in the unsettling situation of having enough warheads to destroy the world many times over. Even the Pentagon admits that the force is more than enough for assured destruction. Still, in today’s world, the United States continues to need new and better weapons.

We would all prefer a world in which our nation was invulnerable to nuclear attack, an international system in which national survival would not depend on our ability to slaughter millions of people. That is not possible in the world we live in today though, and it is not likely in the foreseeable future due to all of the nuclear force present today. Although no one should be happy with the paradox of mutual assured destruction because it is essentially a mutual suicide pact signed by two nuclear superpowers, it seems that in world of nuclear strategy, M.A.D. is the best deterrent to keep the world from entering into a nuclear war.

Reap What You Sow

Elaine Hang

Professor Shirk

International Relations

22 October 2015

Reap What You Sow

The United States should be putting more effort into resettling Syrian refugees rather than increasing military intervention. This strategy would be more beneficial for the United States, because it would be less costly and would improve the image of the US.

The United States has failed to take responsibility for the devastation it has inflicted because of its military operations in Syria. The US military intervention has destabilized the Middle East for the last 20 years and forced millions of Syrians to flee the country. There are at least three actions that the United States contributed the Syrian civil war: destabilizing Iraq, arming “rebel” soldiers, and bombing the areas where members of the Islamic State are stationed.

However, the US cannot afford to increase military involvement in Syria. The cost of addressing the root causes of the Syrian civil war and the rise of the Islamic State is high. Already, the total cost of military operations in the Middle East is between $4 trillion and $6 trillion 2014. Rather than spending more money and time in Syria, the US should work with its allies and focus on funneling its resources to resettling Syrian refugees. The US would join and split the burden with 30 other countries who promised to take in Syrian refugees. In fact, it would cost the US about $4 billion to resettle 266,000 refugees, which costs about the same as year-long airstrikes against the Islamic State.

Not to mention, the United States has a history of resettling refugees. In the late 70s and early 80s, the US resettled about 150,000 Southeast Asian refugees annually. The rate at which the US resettled Southeast Asians refugees was much faster than the rate at which it has been resettling Syrian (1,500 in the last 5 years). The US demonstrated its strength against the communist regime in Vietnam by putting forth a narrative that the US is the beacon of democracy. Therefore, by welcoming more Syrian refugees while decreasing military involvement, the US can counteract the narrative of the US as an enemy the Islamic States presents in order to breed terrorism.

The United States must be held accountable for displacing the local populations in Syria. The best way for it to do so is to increase the number of Syrian refugees it will take in and use its substantial resources to resettle them. Since war in Syria is costly and also unwanted by most US citizens, the US should be leading on the refugee crisis because it would be a better strategy to counteract the Islamic State’s attempt spread terrorism within the region.