Tweet
FAILED STATES INDEX A DISGRACE TO WESTERN SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY
RIA Novosti. Russia
Aug. 21, 2006
MOSCOW. (Sergei Markedonov for RIA Novosti) - Foreign Policy, the
flagship magazine of the Washington, D.C.-based Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace, and the Fund for Peace, a research and educational
organization that works to prevent war and alleviate the conditions
that cause war, have published a second annual Failed States Index.
It comprises the 60 most vulnerable countries (although the survey
covered 148), including Russia and such post-Soviet states as Belarus,
Moldova, Georgia, Tajikistan and Turkmenistan.
The index is based on data collected from 11,000 public sources
from May to December 2005 according to 12 social, economic, military
and political indicators, including mounting demographic pressure,
massive movement of refugees, widespread violation of human rights, the
security apparatus as "state within a state", the rise of factionalized
elites, and the intervention of other states or external actors.
According to the Fund for Peace, "A state that is failing has several
attributes. One of the most common is the loss of physical control
of its territory or a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. Other
attributes of state failure include the erosion of legitimate authority
to make collective decisions, an inability to provide reasonable
public services, and the inability to interact with other states as
a full member of the international community."
It may seem at first glance that the authors' new coinage, "failed
states", is similar to definitions from dictionaries of international
law and diplomacy. But the results of the survey contradict the
proclaimed objective.
For example, Azerbaijan is not on the list, although it does not
control 13% of its territory and the Armenian community, which lives
in the self-proclaimed Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh, does not recognize
the legitimacy of its government.
Neither does the list include Armenia, whose external security is
mostly ensured by Russian border guards, and Ukraine, whose government
was not considered legitimate by half of the country's population
(the Crimea and southern and eastern Ukraine).
The most interesting part of the survey is the "most at-risk
countries". According to this list, Belarus is more vulnerable than
Georgia. I wonder: Doesn't President Alexander Lukashenko control his
territory? Perhaps Belarus has refugees and separatist movements? Or
someone apart from Lukashenko has "a monopoly on the legitimate use
of force"?
According to the index, Georgia has not failed as much as China,
Russia and Kyrgyzstan. This is a paradoxical conclusion, as these
states have problems with territorial integrity, but do not have
self-proclaimed republics on their territory, and their separatism
figures are average, only slightly higher than for India or Ethiopia,
which are not included in this group according to the given criterion.
Kyrgyzstan preserved its territorial integrity even after the "tulip
revolution" by offering a reasonable compromise to the opposition
(the president represents the southern regions, and the prime minister
the northern areas).
Georgia contains two de facto independent states, Abkhazia and South
Ossetia. The Tbilisi authorities are guilty of provoking ethnic
conflicts, as well as purges (in the Kvareli district, where Avars
were forced to leave). They tried to squeeze Greeks from the Tsalk
region and created apartheid conditions in the Dzhavakheti region
(populated mostly by Armenians) and Kvemo Kartli (where Azeris
constitute a big part of the population).
The "Georgia for Georgians" policy pursued by Tbilisi forced 43,000
Ossetians to flee South Ossetia and internal Georgian regions and
turned nearly 200,000 Georgians in Abkhazia into "displaced persons"
in 1993. Before July 2006, Georgia had no "physical control" of the
Kodori Gorge.
The failure to create a civilized democratic system of succession for
the country's top officials is another argument for moving Georgia
from 60th place to the group of the most at-risk countries. Not a
single Georgian president has left his post because of elections
(unlike in the breakaway republics of Abkhazia and South Ossetia).
The reason for the strange ranking in the Failed States Index is
apparent. The survey was designed not to create an objective picture,
but to strengthen political myths and stereotypes, like the myth of
a failed Belarus, a rising democratic state of Georgia, and a failed
Russia (the attitude to Russia merits a separate article).
The trouble is that such surveys, conducted by respected publications
and foundations, discredit these institutions and the Western
scientific community as a whole, exposing their inflexibility and
dogmatism (not unlike those of the Soviet Union). Therefore, they are
a disgrace to the ideas and practice of democracy, which is much more
dangerous than a mere "failed" sociological survey.
An expert survey of political processes and an analysis of their
criteria and indicators are important in the modern world. The
system laid out in the Yalta and Potsdam agreements, signed during
and after WWII, has become ineffective, and the foundations of a new
world order have not yet been built. In this situation, politicians
around the world need to find a common language based on generally
accepted terms, rules and criteria.
Doing so would minimize, if not eradicate, "double-entry bookkeeping"
in international relations, and help formulate common approaches
to such global challenges as terrorism, multinational crime, and
"failed states".
Various global players view these three challenges as the main threats
to peace, which makes it especially important to elaborate criteria
for gauging them.
Unfortunately, hasty, made-to-order surveys can compound chaos and
engender unjustified expectations, myths and stereotypes, resulting
in inadequate approaches and faulty political decisions.
Sergei Markedonov is head of the department of ethnic relations at
the Institute of Military and Political Analysis.
The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and
may not necessarily represent the opinions of the editorial board.
RIA Novosti. Russia
Aug. 21, 2006
MOSCOW. (Sergei Markedonov for RIA Novosti) - Foreign Policy, the
flagship magazine of the Washington, D.C.-based Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace, and the Fund for Peace, a research and educational
organization that works to prevent war and alleviate the conditions
that cause war, have published a second annual Failed States Index.
It comprises the 60 most vulnerable countries (although the survey
covered 148), including Russia and such post-Soviet states as Belarus,
Moldova, Georgia, Tajikistan and Turkmenistan.
The index is based on data collected from 11,000 public sources
from May to December 2005 according to 12 social, economic, military
and political indicators, including mounting demographic pressure,
massive movement of refugees, widespread violation of human rights, the
security apparatus as "state within a state", the rise of factionalized
elites, and the intervention of other states or external actors.
According to the Fund for Peace, "A state that is failing has several
attributes. One of the most common is the loss of physical control
of its territory or a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. Other
attributes of state failure include the erosion of legitimate authority
to make collective decisions, an inability to provide reasonable
public services, and the inability to interact with other states as
a full member of the international community."
It may seem at first glance that the authors' new coinage, "failed
states", is similar to definitions from dictionaries of international
law and diplomacy. But the results of the survey contradict the
proclaimed objective.
For example, Azerbaijan is not on the list, although it does not
control 13% of its territory and the Armenian community, which lives
in the self-proclaimed Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh, does not recognize
the legitimacy of its government.
Neither does the list include Armenia, whose external security is
mostly ensured by Russian border guards, and Ukraine, whose government
was not considered legitimate by half of the country's population
(the Crimea and southern and eastern Ukraine).
The most interesting part of the survey is the "most at-risk
countries". According to this list, Belarus is more vulnerable than
Georgia. I wonder: Doesn't President Alexander Lukashenko control his
territory? Perhaps Belarus has refugees and separatist movements? Or
someone apart from Lukashenko has "a monopoly on the legitimate use
of force"?
According to the index, Georgia has not failed as much as China,
Russia and Kyrgyzstan. This is a paradoxical conclusion, as these
states have problems with territorial integrity, but do not have
self-proclaimed republics on their territory, and their separatism
figures are average, only slightly higher than for India or Ethiopia,
which are not included in this group according to the given criterion.
Kyrgyzstan preserved its territorial integrity even after the "tulip
revolution" by offering a reasonable compromise to the opposition
(the president represents the southern regions, and the prime minister
the northern areas).
Georgia contains two de facto independent states, Abkhazia and South
Ossetia. The Tbilisi authorities are guilty of provoking ethnic
conflicts, as well as purges (in the Kvareli district, where Avars
were forced to leave). They tried to squeeze Greeks from the Tsalk
region and created apartheid conditions in the Dzhavakheti region
(populated mostly by Armenians) and Kvemo Kartli (where Azeris
constitute a big part of the population).
The "Georgia for Georgians" policy pursued by Tbilisi forced 43,000
Ossetians to flee South Ossetia and internal Georgian regions and
turned nearly 200,000 Georgians in Abkhazia into "displaced persons"
in 1993. Before July 2006, Georgia had no "physical control" of the
Kodori Gorge.
The failure to create a civilized democratic system of succession for
the country's top officials is another argument for moving Georgia
from 60th place to the group of the most at-risk countries. Not a
single Georgian president has left his post because of elections
(unlike in the breakaway republics of Abkhazia and South Ossetia).
The reason for the strange ranking in the Failed States Index is
apparent. The survey was designed not to create an objective picture,
but to strengthen political myths and stereotypes, like the myth of
a failed Belarus, a rising democratic state of Georgia, and a failed
Russia (the attitude to Russia merits a separate article).
The trouble is that such surveys, conducted by respected publications
and foundations, discredit these institutions and the Western
scientific community as a whole, exposing their inflexibility and
dogmatism (not unlike those of the Soviet Union). Therefore, they are
a disgrace to the ideas and practice of democracy, which is much more
dangerous than a mere "failed" sociological survey.
An expert survey of political processes and an analysis of their
criteria and indicators are important in the modern world. The
system laid out in the Yalta and Potsdam agreements, signed during
and after WWII, has become ineffective, and the foundations of a new
world order have not yet been built. In this situation, politicians
around the world need to find a common language based on generally
accepted terms, rules and criteria.
Doing so would minimize, if not eradicate, "double-entry bookkeeping"
in international relations, and help formulate common approaches
to such global challenges as terrorism, multinational crime, and
"failed states".
Various global players view these three challenges as the main threats
to peace, which makes it especially important to elaborate criteria
for gauging them.
Unfortunately, hasty, made-to-order surveys can compound chaos and
engender unjustified expectations, myths and stereotypes, resulting
in inadequate approaches and faulty political decisions.
Sergei Markedonov is head of the department of ethnic relations at
the Institute of Military and Political Analysis.
The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and
may not necessarily represent the opinions of the editorial board.