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.
Kathryn,
ReplyDeleteWhat if the problems threaten core national interests? For instance, what if a weak state like Afghanistan is housing a group like al Qaeda? Should the US just let it sink or swim? What should be done in such a circumstance?
I think dealing with a problem within a state that doesn't deal with the state itself is different than going in and helping the state government. I think the U.S. could go and fight al Qaeda in order to help our national interests but I don't think we would have to help Afghanistan in the process. Of course we would need their approval to go into the country but it's not really something to fix the government.
DeleteI also have always thought that the U.S. acts too much like a world police often. I don't believe it's our duty to step in and help states in need all the time. Although do you think that we should help states that we trade heavily with or states who we consider close allies when they are in times of need and becoming a 'weak state'?
ReplyDeleteI don't know of any states we can use an example of when this would be necessary. I don't think we are close allies with any state that is at risk of becoming weak or failed. If we were I would say we could either help a small amount when asked or we could cut back ties with that state. I'm not sure which I would go for, but I would say we shouldn't help them very much.
DeleteThe danger with allowing states to absorb failed or weak states is the resulting threat that those now larger states pose to surrounding nations. Do you think that the tensions that would result from state absorbtion are a national interest? Could not more prevalent state absorbtion completely change the dynamic of international politics?
ReplyDeleteI do agree that the United States does tend to get involved with other states too often. We too frequently try to come into a weak or failing state and attempt to be their savior and bring them into prosperity. However, we usually do more harm than good. The example you gave about Iraq was very well thought-out and I really enjoyed your article.
ReplyDelete