A failed state is usually defined as one in which law and order has collapsed and the government can no longer provide services to the people. In 2005 Foreign Policy reported that up to two billion people live in countries in danger of collapse and so are exposed to vary- ing degrees of violence. In the past, the US and the global community have acted to prevent failure, but with mixed results. This debate focuses on whether and how the United States and the United Nations should act to prevent failure.
PROS
We must help failing states, because once they col- lapse, they cannot provide services and security for their people. The United States should work with the UN to resolve conflicts and should engage in peacekeeping mis- sions and nation-building initiatives. (This will require both a greater willingness on the part of the US to com- mit funds and a commitment to conflict resolution that has been largely lacking in recent US policy.)
We must rescue failing states in the interests of inter- national stability. Failed states often infect an entire re- gion, a problem known as contagion. Neighboring states
CONS
The United States National Security Strategy (2002) rightly states that the United States “should be realis- tic about its ability to help those that are unwilling and unready to help themselves. Where and when people are ready to do their part, we will be ready to move de- cisively.” Past US failures in Haiti and Somalia show the wisdom of this principle. The United States should choose its areas of engagement with care based on their strategic importance and the likelihood of success, rather than spread itself too thin to be effective.
US willingness to step in to help every fragile state will only exacerbate the problem. Irresponsible governments will assume that the US will bail them out to prevent
100|The Debatabase Book
back different factions and are themselves destabilized by floods of refugees and weapons from next door. Also, their own rebel groups can easily use the lawless country to regroup and mount fresh attacks.
Failed states often provide havens for illegal activity such as growing opium. Finally, desperate people in failed states may take refuge in religious or political extremism, which can threaten the world.
Saving fragile states from failure is in the interest of the United States and its allies. Failed states often become havens for terrorists, as happened in Afghanistan and Somalia. The United States should work with the UN to strengthen governments so that they can more effectively maintain internal order while controlling their borders and tracking resource flows.
The cost of preventive action is dramatically lower than the cost of military action, and we are paying the price for failing states in any case. The United States already spends many billions of dollars annually in handling the humanitarian, drug, and security problems these states create. These states also cost the world economy in terms of lost opportunities for trade and investment.
The US and other international financial institutions must change their rules on aid and market access. At present these programs reward only countries that have good governance (e.g., anticorruption measures, etc.). Sensible though it seems, this policy denies international help to failing states, whose people need this aid. Fund- ing micro-credit plans, education, health, and sanitation programs in the more stable parts of failing states, and providing meaningful trade access could provide long- term benefits for the United States.
The US should work with the UN to prevent state fail- ure. The United Nations has the expertise and is widely respected, whereas the international reputation of the
their people from suffering. This in itself makes future failures much more likely.
The contagion theory is hard to apply beyond a small group of countries in West Africa. Elsewhere failed states do not tend to drag their neighbors down with them. For example, none of the countries bordering Somalia are close to failing. In most cases, having regional groups take responsibility for failing states in their areas is far better than overburdening the United States and UN. We have very limited evidence to support the theory that failed states become havens for terrorists. Yes, there are a few Al-Qaeda sympathizers in Somalia, but these are no greater a threat than similar groups in other coun- tries. Nor is Afghanistan a good example; an established government—the Taliban—invited Osama bin Laden to take refuge there. On the other hand, Iran and Syria are both accused of providing bases for terrorists, but nei- ther is a failed state.
The cost of intervention is too high. The UN has nei- ther the money nor the support to undertake speculative missions. Currently, it cannot provide enough troops for peacekeeping missions in countries that request them. The US already contributes nearly a quarter of the UN’s peacekeeping budget and cannot afford more at a time when it is already stretched by major commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The United States should maintain and even extend its current approach to international development. Such conditions provide incentives for developing countries to put constructive policies in place and reward those who fight corruption. As past failures show all too clear- ly, throwing money at chaotic, lawless, and corrupt re- gimes is pointless—it never reaches the people anyway. In any case, humanitarian relief is not conditional, and the United States continues to respond with compassion to emergencies anywhere in the world.
Finally, special measures to support states identified as failing could in themselves be economically harmful. Even discussing intervention might scare off investors and help to bring about economic collapse, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Intervening in fragile states is simply a new form of im- perialism. Neither the United States nor the UN should impose its rule on individual countries. Doing so would
US is now sufficiently damaged that the hostility Amer- ica generates can undermine the good work it wishes to do. The US can provide resources to enable the UN to secure the future stability of many fragile countries, while UN involvement will show that these operations are altruistic and pose no imperialist threat. Over time, the partnership will change the world’s perception of the US—an important aspect of the war on terror.
deny people the right to chart their own future. A policy of intervention would create more hostility toward the United States, with accusations that it is acting out of self-interest. US troops and civilian personnel could rap- idly become targets for attacks. And increasing UN in- tervention in the domestic affairs of member states could encourage the organization in its ambitions to become a world government.
Sample Motions:
This House believes the United States should work together with the UN to prevent the collapse of third-world states. This House would save failing states.
This House believes the United States should do more to prevent failed states.
Web Links:
• The Failed State Index. <http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3098> A Foreign Policy ranking of weak and fail- ing states.
• Global Policy Forum. <http://www.globalpolicy.org/nations/sovereign/failedindex.htm> Links to a variety of articles on failed states.
• The Reluctant Imperialist: Terrorism, Failed States, and the Case for American Empire. <http://www.foreignaffairs.org/ 20020301facomment7967/sebastian-mallaby/the-reluctant-imperialist-terrorism-failed-states-and-the-case-for-american-empire. html> Article in Foreign Affairs supporting US intervention in failed states.
• U.S. Foreign Assistance and Failed States. <http://www.brook.edu/views/papers/rice/20021125.htm> Brookings Institution paper on the subject.
Further Reading:
Cooper, Robert. The Breaking of Nations. Atlantic Books, 2004.
Diamond, Jared. Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Survive. Viking, 2005.
Fukuyama, Francis. State Building: Governance and World Order in the Twenty-First Century. Profile Books, 2004. Pham, John-Peter. Liberia: Portrait of a Failed State. Reed Press, 2004.
102|The Debatabase Book