|
![]() |
FAILED STATES: Many of the threats listed in this matrix do not cause conflict in and of themselves. Combinations of these challenges, however, may lead to state failure and violent conflict. Failed states lack the ability to safeguard economic stability, provide access to resources such as food and water and promote general public security. A recent editorial in the New York Times ( 02/28/05 ) highlights the global threats emerging from failed states: ‘The lethal combination of corrupt or destructive leaders, porous and unmonitored borders and rootless or hopeless young men has made some of these region incubators of international terrorism and contagious diseases like AIDS. Others are sanctuaries for swindlers and drug traffickers whose victims can be found throughout the world.' Currently, World Bank statistics indicate that 1.1 billion people in the world live on less than $1USD a day and that only 10 percent of these poor households have access to clean water (The Global Monitoring Report). The highest levels of poverty are found in failed states—nations without the infrastructure or capabilities to provide social welfare and security. Failed and failing states provide a potential refuge for transnational terrorists, transnational criminal organizations, pirates as well as drug and human smugglers. They are breeding grounds for refugee crises, political and religious extremism, environmental degradation and organized criminal activity. Afghanistan under the Taliban regime is a recent example of how non-state actors like al Qaeda used the government of a failed state to carry out a campaign against a state adversary, the United States , with global consequences for the rest of the international community. Thus, even if a failed state has little significance in the traditional sense of strategic resources or geographical position, it will take on greater strategic importance in the future by virtue of the potential base it offers to powerful non-state actors. The international danger posed by failed states exists largely in relation to the transnational insurgency movements (TIMs) housed within those nations, and the conflict that ensues between TIMs and sovereign states. These transnational non-state actors may be referred to as “digital” states in light of Osama Bin Laden's argument that the United States is forcing nations like Saudi Arabia , Egypt , Iraq , and Sudan into “paper statelets” to further the “crusader-Zionist alliance.” “Paper” is an apt adjective in that it is an analog form of communication/inscription, and thus a traditional means of conveying and systematizing authority. What is meant here as traditional, is a notion of sovereignty conceived of by Western sources. The opposition to a paper state would be a digital state, something ephemeral, mobile, and non-national, which unlike paper, can be reconstructed and reconstituted by the user. It is apparent that Bin Laden has no desire to acclimatize his Islamist cause with all other movements and beliefs. Nonetheless, al Qaeda has gone to great lengths to accommodate and support a variety of Islamic fundamentalist causes, both Shi'ite and Sunni, ethno-nationalist movements, and separatist groups throughout the world. The threat also has become digital in that individuals and groups, not directly associated with al Qaeda, are committing attacks in its name. A virtual brotherhood has emerged, which allows individuals to identify with the struggle while not physically connected to the movement. |