Failed State Index 2007

Came across an interesting article on failed states in Foreign Policy.

From the article:

[quote]The vast majority of the states listed in the index have not yet failed; they exhibit severe weaknesses that leave them vulnerable, especially to shocks such as natural disasters, war, and economic deprivation. The power of such events should not be underestimated. […] It shows again that a country’s problems are never simply its own.

That conclusion becomes especially worrisome when the weak states in question possess nuclear weapons. Today, two countries among the world’s 15 most vulnerable, North Korea and Pakistan, are members of the nuclear club. Their profiles could hardly be less similar: The former faces the very real prospect of economic collapse, followed by massive human flight, while the latter presides over a lawless frontier country and a disenchanted Islamist opposition whose ranks grow by the day.

But while these states’ failings may be frequent fodder for headlines around the world, it is obvious that there are few easy answers to their troubles. In highlighting which states are at the greatest risk of failure, we can only hope that more effective and long-term solutions emerge over time as we compare the index from year to year. In that way, positive reversals of fortune can occur for the world’s most vulnerable nations and, in the process, improve the security and prosperity of everyone. [/quote]

And for those who read Jared Diamond’s Collapse, in which he maps the relationship between environmental collapse and political instability:

That is why I have always said my biggest fear all along has been Pakistan. The rest are chump change compared with a meltdown there.

I agree with that whole-heartedly. That’s the nightmare scenario.

Fred, what precisely is the “that” you’re referring to?
Beyond the gungho stuff, do you have an overall idea for promoting long-term stability there?

That would in my view obviously refer to the risk of Pakistan as a failed state. Don’t you even read the titles of the posts that you make? haha

Yes, but below the headline there’s a number of other states listed, and Pakistan is #12, while North Korea is #13. (Btw, Iraq is #2, Iran #57).

So, why is Pakistan #1 on your list? Do you have any insight on how to move it down the list?

No, but I am most concerned about the level of extremism in Pakistan coupled with nuclear weapons. North Korea in my view is containable. Even Iran to some extent is containable. Pakistan in my view is not. I shake with terror at the thought of a meltdown in Pakistan. That is why I want Iraq and Afghanistan secured and Syria and Iran neutralized before we have to deal with that little chestnut. That will take all of our abilities.

or all of your Tomahawks and ICBMs.

Put me in the camp of those less alarmed about Pakistan. Though Musharaff, like Zia before him, has supported the Islamic fundamentalists as a counterweight against the democratic opposition, the Fundies still have a very low support rate overall, and most of that in the North West. The vast majority of Pakistanis still support Bhutto or the Pakistan Muslim League/Q (the power loving faction hived of by Musharaff.)

Given that, plus the Army’s overwhelming concern with India and the need for American support to maintain a credible deterrence, I doubt if there’s any serious risk of a Fundamentalist takeover.

A few wackos getting hold of a loose nuke, on the other hand…