Are Afghanistan, Pakistan, Mexico ‘failed states’? If so, then what?

March 30, 2009 by Brenda J. Elliott

^{Foreign Policy’s 2005 Failed States Index}
failed-states-2008
The March 29 posts A Mexican Standoff with Reality by Zenpundit, Mark Safranski, and Washington continues to play ostrich about Mexico by Pundita raised an infrequently discussed and not clearly understood issue — failed states.

In particular there is recent debate as to whether Mexico is/is not a failed state. If it is, then we ask whether its “failed” status is on a par with such other failed states as Pakistan and Afghanistan? — Even though there are those who do not subscribe to the notion that either of them is a failed state.

As always, let’s start at the beginning. What is a failed state?

In the simplest of definitions, a failed state is one that has a “shattered social and political structure.”

Writing December 1999 for the International Review of the Red Cross, Daniel Thürer, J.D. (right), Professor of International Law, European Law, Constitutional Law and Administrative Law at the University of Zurich, said

Failing States are invariably the product of a collapse of the power structures providing political support for law and order, a process generally triggered and accompanied by ”anarchic” forms of internal violence.

Dr. Thürer wrote that former Secretary-General of the United Nations, Boutros Boutros-Ghali, described this situation in the following way (emphasis added):

collapse of state institutions, especially the police and judiciary

paralysis of governance

breakdown of law and order

general banditry and chaos

States in which institutions and law and order have totally or partially collapsed under the pressure and amidst the confusion of erupting violence, yet which subsist as a ghostly presence on the world map, are now commonly referred to as “failed States” or “Etats sans gouvernement”.

Failed State Index 2008

The 2008 Foreign Policy Failed State Index lists “failed states” rated on several criteria. Aghanistan ranked at number 7 and Pakistan at number 9.

Pakistan

In August 2001 a Foreign Policy Association publication described Pakistan as having “failed to achieve political stability, sustained economic growth or a clear sense of national identity.”

Of deeper concern is the observation by Javed Amir, writing November 24, 2002, in Dawn, that Pakistan is a failed state in possession of nuclear weapons.

In June 2005 Amir Mir wrote in Asia Times Online that the “sectarian war between Pakistan’s Shi’ites and Sunnis is bloody and deadly.”

^{September 2008 — “a major explosion destroyed the Marriott Hotel in Islamabad, killing more than 50 people and injuring more than 250.”}
1-pakistan-danger_1123055i1

The genie of sectarian violence refuses to be bottled, and even as Musharraf exhorts the people of Pakistan to adopt “enlightened moderation”, the country’s tentative quest for a non-discriminatory liberal democracy continues to unravel. Indeed, the ideology of fundamentalist Islam appears to remain at the heart of the Musharraf establishment’s strategy of national political mobilization and consolidation, despite talk of enlightened moderation. Pakistan continues to be caught in the trap of extremist Islamic militancy and terror that its mighty military establishment constructed as part of its Afghan and Kashmir policies. Official support – both explicit and implicit – to Islamist terrorist groups continues, even while the state struggles to cope with the internal fallout of the burgeoning terrorist community.

Since the overall direction of Pakistan’s military establishment remains committed to an Islamic ideological state, some of the militant groups that are supported by the regime are often found involved in bloody acts of sectarian violence. The Musharraf administration’s support for the jihadis fighting in Jammu & Kashmir (J&K) and Afghanistan – and the growing nexus between the jihadi and sectarian outfits – has indirectly promoted sectarian violence in Pakistan. The linkages between militants active in J&K and Afghanistan, on the one hand, and those within Pakistan, on the other, are not surprising, since these jihadis share the same madrassas (seminaries), training camps and, often, operatives. Thus, though the Pakistani military establishment’s support for these groups has kept the Indian army tied down in J&K, it has created a serious “principal-agent” problem on the domestic front. By facilitating the actions of irregulars in J&K, Pakistan actually promotes sectarian jihad and terrorism back home.

The long international boundary shared by Afghanistan and Pakistan — and the proximity of Kabul and Islamabad — speak to the fluidity of movement of terrorists and the ease of sectarian violence between the two countries.

pakistan-2002

Mir clearly identified Pakistan’s status of a “failed state” in 2005 (emphasis added):

Pakistan

transformed into a full-fledged political conflict, with broad ramifications for law and order, social cohesion and governmental authority.

But then it depends whom you ask whether or not they agree.

Agence France Presse reported March 2 that analysts believe Pakistan’s “stagnant economy [could make it] even more dependent on U.S. aid and IMF bailouts.”

Analysts say Pakistan can ill afford a political crisis on top of extremist attacks that have killed more than 1,600 people in under two years, financial crisis and international pressure to prosecute those behind the Mumbai attacks.

As soon as the Supreme Court disqualified Sharif last Wednesday, panic selling wiped 5% off the Karachi Stock Exchange in the worst single-day performance in 32 months.

“The current political crisis will force us to depend even more on the International Monetary Fund and accept all its conditions,” economist Rauf Nizamani said.

Buffeted by nationwide bombings, insurgency and global financial turmoil, Pakistan was hit last year by 25% inflation and saw $10 billion wiped off its international reserves from October 2007 to October 2008.

The country’s economic managers had no choice but approach the IMF to stave off a looming balance-of-payments crisis that could have seen the Muslim country of 160 million default on foreign debt.

The IMF approved a standby loan of $7.6 billion for cash-starved Pakistan and released its first tranche of $3.1 billion in November.

This year’s fiscal deficit target is 5.5% of gross domestic product, compared to last year’s 7.4%.

Pakistan’s current account deficit was 8.4% of GDP last year, which the authorities are trying to get down to 5.5% under IMF targets.

The authorities also aim to get inflation down to 20% by the end of this fiscal year in July.

Arif Rafiq of Long March asked March 15 at PakistanPolicy.com — “What Failed State?”

Islamabad has implemented one of the most severe blockages of public movement in the country’s history. [Update: It didn't work too well in Lahore.] Remember, this is a country of 165 million.

Major national highways and city roads are off limits. Shipping containers have been laid out on the roads by the Zardari-dominated Gilani government to prevent a sizable assembly of Long March protesters. [Good luck to exporters with shipping deadlines to meet!]

The Pakistan Army is deployed in Islamabad in full force to prevent public assembly. [It's unclear as to whether they are just following orders to let Zardari self-destruct completely or whether Army Chief Kayani is in on the draconian measures against Pakistan's citizenry.]

The provincial police services and national intelligence agencies – including, some lawyers movement activists claim, plainclothes ISI officers — have detained dozens of major civil society and political leaders. They have also arrested hundreds of lawyers and party activists.

The most watched news channel is blocked in much of the country. Even dorm residents at Islamabad’s Quaid-e Azam University were booted out of their housing facilities — many or most with no place to go. SMS service has been blocked in Islamabad. This could extend to the rest of the country. [...]

Granted, it is facing a non-violent opposition. It is easy to suppress the peaceful and unarmed. Fighting cannibalistic terrorists is another matter. Rehman Malik, now de-facto interior minister, ran away to Zardari House in Islamabad after Benazir Bhutto was assassinated, despite being in charge of her security.

Proclamations of the demise of the Pakistani state are always premature as long as the state is able to function at will. The will, tragically, is generally demonstrated for the sake of self-preservation or aggrandizement.

The state performs well when it wants to, when the major elements of the state work in concert with one another.

Afghanistan

A September 10, 2002, CNN article by Joe Havely reported that Afghanistan, “after more than two decades of constant warfare,” was a “nation in ruins.” Towns and cities had become “reduced to rubble” and its social and political structure had become “torn apart by years of bitter conflict.” Additionally, according to Western leaders, it was this failed state that allowed Afghanistan to become a home to terrorists and, in turn, “pav[ed] the way” for the events of September 11, 2001.

The UN News Centre reported November 22, 2006, that Japanese Ambassador Kenzo Ashima, the head of the prior week’s Security Council mission to Afghanistan, painted “a grim picture of increased Taliban violence, growing illegal drug production and fragile State institutions in Afghanistan,” and said “it faced becoming a failed State unless the international community fully supports the Afghan recovery effort.” Oshima said:

At the same time, it is abundantly clear that Afghanistan needs additional and sustained support and assistance from the international community, both for quick gains and for sustained progress over the long term, [warning that] without such support, there is no guarantee that Afghanistan… will not slide back into conflict and a failed State again.

^{Afghanistan Foreign Office website (fco.gov.uk) strongly advises against all but essential travel to Kabul, adding that “no part of Afghanistan should be considered immune from violence and the potential exists throughout the country for hostile acts”.}
1-afghan-danger

The Guardian (UK) reported January 31 on the Afghanistan Study Group, created by the Center for the Study of the Presidency, which also created the Iraq Study Group.

The Group is co-chaired by Gen. James L. Jones, USMC (Ret.) and Thomas R. Pickering. Jones, now Obama’s National Security Adviser, previously served as NATO Supreme Allied Commander, Europe and Commander of the U.S. European Command before working as a lobbyist for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Pickering is a former Ambassador to Russia, India, Israel, Nigeria, Jordan, and El Salvador.

The Final Report, released January 30, includes a letter from the co-chairs with an overview of the Group’s recommendations.

[...] Although the obstacles there remain substantial, the strategic consequences of failure in Afghanistan would be severe for long-term U.S. interests in the region and for security at home. Allowing the Taliban to re-establish its influence in Afghanistan, as well as failure to prevent Afghanistan from becoming a failed state, would not only undermine the development of the country, it would constitute a major victory for al-Qaeda and its global efforts to spread violence and extremism.

A key phrase jumps out: “It is time to re-vitalize and re-double our efforts toward stabilizing Afghanistan and re-think our economic and military strategies to ensure that the level of our commitment is commensurate with the threat posed by possible failure in Afghanistan.”

Did you catch the key words? — “stabilizing” and “threat posed by possible failure”.

The letter continues:

Additionally, recent events in Pakistan further emphasize that there can be no successful outcome for Afghanistan if its neighbors, especially Pakistan, are not part of the solution.

Hence, this is an AFPAK package of duo-failed states.

… and continues:

[...] the most critical problems facing the country: insecurity, weak governance, widespread corruption, a poor economy and unemployment.

Major Fail.

We have the Group’s list of “six critical issues to revitalize the U.S. and international effort in Afghanistan”:

international coordination
security
governance and rule of law
counter-narcotics
economic development and reconstruction
Afghanistan and its neighbors

Just taking a close look at the map of Afghanistan provides insight into the vastness of the tasks — and understanding as why the Soviet Union failed.

1-afghan1

The Guardian added that SecDef Robert Gates “had a more upbeat assessment. ‘I would say the security situation is good. We want to make sure it gets better, and I think there’s still a need to coordinate civil reconstruction, the economic development side of it.’”

RBO: Someone needs to hand Gates a detailed map and a history book.

Mexico

mexico

Without going any further we can point to factors Mexico shares with both Pakistan and Afghanistan — vast borders (4,353 km) and coastline (9,330 km):

A long permeable border with the U.S. (3,141 km) on the north
An unregulated border with Guatemala (962 km) and Belize (250 km) on the south
Access via the Caribbean Sea and Gulf of Mexico
Access via the North Pacific
Security issues on both sides of the northern border

Add to this both domestic violence and insurgent international terrorism, out-of-control narco-terrorism, and serious social and economic problems.

On the latter, the CIA World Factbook reports for Mexico:

scarcity of hazardous waste disposal facilities; rural to urban migration; natural fresh water resources scarce and polluted in north, inaccessible and poor quality in center and extreme southeast; raw sewage and industrial effluents polluting rivers in urban areas; deforestation; widespread erosion; desertification; deteriorating agricultural lands; serious air and water pollution in the national capital and urban centers along US-Mexico border; land subsidence in Valley of Mexico caused by groundwater depletion

Additionally, the Mexican government “considers the lack of clean water and deforestation national security issues.” Although there has been “abundant rainfall in recent years along much of the Mexico-US border region [which] has ameliorated periodically strained water-sharing arrangements,” the possibility of a border water war is ever present.

Need to know more?

On the matter of spiraling violence bloggers Aaron and Alaine at A Political Season wrote May 13, 2008:

The killings pose a strategic problem for the Mexican government. The bulk of its effective troops are deployed along the U.S. border, attempting to suppress violence and smuggling among the grunts along the border, as well as the well-known smuggling routes elsewhere in the country. The attacks in Mexico raise the question of whether forces should be shifted from these assignments to Mexico City to protect officials and break up the infrastructure of the Sinaloa and other cartels there. The government also faces the secondary task of suppressing violence between cartels. The Sinaloa cartel struck in Mexico City not only to kill troublesome officials and intimidate others, but also to pose a problem for the Mexican government by increasing areas requiring forces, thereby requiring the government to consider splitting its forces — thus reducing the government presence along the border. It was a strategically smart move by Sinaloa, but no one has accused the cartels of being stupid.

There is also organized crime, they add:

Multiple, well-armed organized groups have emerged.

Given the amount of money they have, the organized criminal groups can be very effective in bribing government officials at all levels, from squad leaders patrolling the border to high-ranking state and federal officials. Given the resources they have, they can reach out and kill government officials at all levels as well. Government officials are human; and faced with the carrot of bribes and the stick of death, even the most incorruptible is going to be cautious in executing operations against the cartels.

“Toward a Failed State?” they ask:

It is important to point out that we are not speaking here of corruption, which exists in all governments everywhere. Instead, we are talking about a systematic breakdown of the state, in which government is not simply influenced by criminals, but becomes an instrument of criminals — either simply an arena for battling among groups or under the control of a particular group. The state no longer can carry out its primary function of imposing peace, and it becomes helpless, or itself a direct perpetrator of crime.

Writing in May 2008, Aaron and Alaine did not believe Mexico was a failed state — yet:

It is important to remember that Mexico has a tradition of failed governments, particularly in the 19th and early 20th century. In those periods, Mexico City became an arena for struggle among army officers and regional groups straddling the line between criminal and political. The Mexican army became an instrument in this struggle and its control a prize. The one thing missing was the vast amounts of money at stake. So there is a tradition of state failure in Mexico, and there are higher stakes today than before.

Joel Kurtzman wrote January 16 in the Wall Street Journal “Mexico’s Instability is a Real Problem”:

Mexico is now in the midst of a vicious drug war. Police officers are being bribed and, especially near the United States border, gunned down. Kidnappings and extortion are common place. And, most alarming of all, a new Pentagon study concludes that Mexico is at risk of becoming a failed state. Defense planners liken the situation to that of Pakistan, where wholesale collapse of civil government is possible. [...] It may only be a matter of time before the drug war spills across the border and into the U.S.

Kurtzman backs up Aaron and Alaine’s May 2008 report on the spiraling violence and the problems the Mexican government has in attempting to deal with it:

The problem is that in Mexico’s latest eruption of violence, it’s difficult to tell the good guys from the bad. Mexico’s antidrug czar, Noe Ramirez Mandujano was recently charged with accepting $450,000 from drug lords he was supposed to be hunting down. This was the second time in recent years that one of Mexico’s antidrug chiefs was arrested for taking possible payoffs from drug kingpins. Suspicions that police chiefs, mayors and members of the military are also on the take are rampant.

Kurtzman also points out the real economic loss due to all the illegal activity and violence:

In 2008, Mexico ranked 31st out of 60 countries studied in the Milken Institute/Kurtzman Group Opacity Index. The cost to ordinary Mexicans from poorly functioning institutions has been huge. My colleague, Glenn Yago, and I calculate that if Mexico were to reduce corruption and bring its legal, economic, accounting and regulatory standards up to U.S. levels (the U.S. ranks 13th and Finland ranks first), Mexico’s nominal per capital GDP would increase by about $18,000 to roughly $28,000 a year. And it would also receive a lot more direct foreign investment that would create jobs.

And this impacts the U.S. Thanks to Mexico’s retarded economic growth, millions of Mexicans have illegally moved to the U.S. to find work. Unless the violence can be reversed, the U.S. can anticipate that the flow across the border will continue.

Gordon G. Chang wrote January 22 at Commentary Magazine:

Drug violence has already spilled over the almost 2,000-mile border, the world’s most frequently crossed international boundary. “There is a wave of barbarity that is heading toward the U.S.” said one Mexican.

On February 2 Radio France Internationale (RFI) reported Mexican President Felipe Calderon “dismissed claims by the US that Mexico could become a failed state because of ongoing drug-related violence in the Latin American country. He says the US must do more to help stem the flow of weapons across the border and assist with Mexico’s economic problems.”

RFI cited the U.S. Joint Forces Command report which stated “An unstable Mexico could represent a homeland security problem of immense proportions to the United States.”

Zenpundit, Mark Safranski, also quoted from the report:

….The Mexican possibility may seem less likely, but the government, its politicians, police, and judicial infrastructure are all under sustained assault and pressure by criminal gangs and drug cartels. How that internal conflict turns out over the next several years will have a major impact on the stability of the Mexican state. Any descent by Mexico into chaos would demand an American response based on the serious implications for homeland security alone.

Ewen MacAskill reported March 25 in the Guardian (UK) that things are getting way out of hand along the US-Mexico border:

Washington is dispatching more federal agents and equipment to its south-western border with Mexico to target the cartels. Among them are a newly formed FBI unit, to deal with the ringleaders, and treasury officials who will track drug money. An extra 100 customs officers are to be sent to the border within the next 45 days. [...]

The moves reflect growing concern in Washington that the carnage in Mexico involving the cartels is in danger of spilling over the border. [...]

Calderón has dispatched more than 45,000 Mexican troops to combat the cartels, which responded with thousands of kidnappings and murders, including beheadings. Despite a string of arrests and drug busts – last week, soldiers captured two drug bosses – a record 6,300 drug-related killings occurred last year.

Other measures announced by the White House yesterday included dispatching more mobile x-ray units to the US side of the border to screen vehicles involved in gun trafficking. Napolitano said that over the last week, the US had stopped 997 firearms en route to Mexico. Absent from the announced plans were high-visibility moves such as deployment of the National Guard or expansion of the border fence started under George Bush. But the Obama administration argues that these are not necessarily effective.

David Ogden, the deputy attorney general, said that the best way to fight the cartels was through intelligence-based operations, “the same approach as we took towards the Cosa Nostra”.

The Obama administration view is that the strategy pursued against the Cosa Nostra, tracking the money with a view to locking up the leaders, is better than piecemeal arrests.

Whether, by now, you believe Mexico is a failed state, Barackistan HQ’s Director of Intelligence, Dennis Blair, said March 26 that it will not become one.

Blair downplayed the notion that drug violence has brought Mexico to the brink of collapse. Rather, Blair says the escalating violence is a testament to the Mexican government’s efforts to pressure the illegal drug cartels.

“Mexico is in no danger of becoming a failed state. [Let me] repeat that. Mexico is in no danger of becoming a failed state. The violence we see now is the result of Mexico taking action against the drug cartels. So it is in fact the result of positive moves, which the Mexican government has taken to break the baneful influence that many of these cartels have had on many aspects of Mexican government and Mexican life,” Blair said.

Add to all this Pundita’s post in which she reported on the presence of Hezbollah in Mexico (right, Hezbollah recruits in Venezuela):

keep telling yourself

The increasing level of sophistication shown by the Mexican assassins has been matched by the increasing sophistication and preponderance of tunneling into the United States from Mexico.

Hezbollah (and Hamas) are tunnelin’ fools. They love to tunnel. And just as in Lebanon and Gaza, take out one tunnel and they build another as soon as your back is turned. And, of course, both organizations are trained by the Iranian military.

So somebody tell me again that there’s nothing to be alarmed about at this time. Whaddya want? Las Vegas captured and wired with a nuke before you’ll start worrying about Hezbollah in the USA?

And actually, there’s a silver lining to Hezbollah pussyfooting around on our border, and we should take advantage of it, instead of ignoring it. Hezbollah solves the sticky diplomatic problem of dealing with Mexicans who’re huffy about U.S. fence-building:

‘Oh, it’s not you we’re worried about; it’s them damn Islamic terrorists.’

Bottom line

In all honesty, whether or not Pakistan, Afghanistan and/or Mexico qualify as a “failed state” in terms acceptable to Barackistan HQ, it is unclear how the United States can manage the problems associated with stabilizing any of them while we are still committed in Iraq and swirling down the money drain with the global economy in the state it is clearly in and the sort of plans and endlessly expensive programs Dear Leader expects to carry out — at American taxpayers expense.

Let’s leave this be for now. More to come, as always.

Update: Mark Safranski, Zenpundit, crossposted an excerpt along with two other perspectives from full time national security people, Jay Fraser, who writes with Mark at Threatswatch.org, and the “semi-legendary David Ronfeldt of RAND.” Please go read.

Posted in Barack Obama | Tagged Afghanistan, Afghanistan Study Group, AFPAK, Barack Obama, Center for the Study of the Presidency, Dennis Blair, drug cartels, failed state, Hezbollah, James L. Jones, Mark Safranski, Mexico, NATO, Pakistan, politics, Pundita, RBO, Real Barack Obama, Robert Gates, The Real Barack Obama, Venezuela, Zenpundit | 3 Comments

3 Responses

on March 30, 2009 at 6:11 pm | Reply Pundita

A great study, and a very useful one, pulled together in record time. Hat’s off. You’re a phenom, you know that? Awright; I’m not going to heap any more compliments on you, so you don’t become a target of the Puffy Head Minders. But the blogosphere is very lucky to have you, and I’m lucky that our paths crossed.
on March 30, 2009 at 10:54 pm | Reply mcnorman

Thank you.
on March 31, 2009 at 8:28 am | Reply Are Afghanistan, Pakistan, Mexico ‘failed states’? If so, then what? «

[...] I am cross-posting an excellent piece from RBO. [...]