Failed States

Anyone who's taken a Poli. Sci. class will agree with me on this one: Understanding international relations means understanding a whole new jargon. Every institution seems to have an acronym; every international relations theory has a complicated title, (and a seemingly simple definition.) And there are tons of these catchy phrases that people casually throw around in conversation -- like "grass roots" or "sustainable development."

Recently, one of these catchy phrases seems to be coming up in almost all of my readings. Apparently several Tufts professors have long since caught on, and it's become a favorite phrase when describing what was once referred to as the "third world." Although no one seems exactly sure who launched it- a recent IR phrase of the moment seems to be: "Failed States."

Now let's take a moment and think about that- "Failed States." I feel compelled to ask what exam it was that we failed?

According to the Center for Defense Information a "failed state" represents "...the inability of the state to provide for the needs of its citizens...such states threaten the security of their neighbors and their regions as the source of instability."

I'm sure many of you third or fourth year scholars would jump at the occasion to point out that indeed Africa is a poverty stricken continent where a cycle of poverty instability and violence are all synonymous. Index fingers pointing to Zimbabwe would justify the use of the term "failed states" by pointing to Mugabe. Although I'm not a supporter, I would argue that it is easy to point to a government and place the blame there, but that is when it becomes necessary to draw a distinction between a failed "state" and a failed "government."

It's also important to note that when we speak of governments who are unable to attribute funds to integral social services; what we fail to mention is that a lot of those resources are spent re-servicing the debts accumulated during colonial times. This is hardly discussed when giving countries with such potential such an undeserving failing grade.

"Failed states are not simply a reflection of African incompetence or corruption but can be explained by such other factors as weapons proliferation, repressive regimes, external interference and Scarcity (Rothberg and Weiss, 1996:182)."

In September of 1999, Former Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright pledged that "The U.S. will refrain from selling arms to regions of conflict not already covered by arms embargoes." Not only is that an admission that the US government was selling small arms to several African countries, but it is also an indication that until at least September 1999 many arms have already been accumulated and are for the most part the tools used in the various conflicts we have recently witnessed.

While the Western Military Industrial Complex prospers off of these conflicts, African states are deemed failures for having engaged in them in the first place?!?

In the world order of nation states that has existed since the Peace of Westphalia of 1648 it is disturbing to see such a categorical term launched. The leadership in the US has been advancing the notion of "failed states" as a mandate, for the sole remaining superpower to stage regime changes, in any nation deemed such.

When one looks at the civil wars in many of the African countries, it is disheartening to see that what makes headline news is the morality of having Child Soldiers, and not De Beers' generational exploitation of the region's resources that sets the stage for the conflict in the first place. When the issue becomes HIV/AIDS, the headlines talk of prostitution, promiscuity among black people or the taboo placed on homosexuality in African societies -- and yet the question that needs to be raised is: "Where is the Anti-Retroviral Medication?"

I would much rather not put all the blame of Africa's current situation on the shoulders of colonialists. But it is important that when a country is called a "failed state" one takes into consideration why it has even come to that.

Why is it that a Western power with international clout is referring to countries suffering the World Bank and IMF's failed Structural Adjustment or HIPC initiatives and selfish pharmaceutical conglomerates caps on patenting anti retroviral medication, as "failed states." The point of the matter is that the phrase "failed states" is too terminal, and beyond even that -- it is inaccurate. A government might fail to deliver what it promised, but the state can not fail unless it has decided to disintegrate (USSR).

The purpose here at Tufts, as I have understood it, is to prepare us to be leaders and citizens of the world. It is important that we gain an accurate and real representation of what the world we are about to enter is like. Most of the world is comprised of developing countries, struggling economies, desperate people, but if they haven't given up hope then we can't give up hope for them.

I wrote this piece so that as we begin "hell week" of endless "study sessions" and all nighters we should take the time to think about what it means to "Fail." May Tufts Professors and Administrators be aware of the power they possess when using such biased terminology.

And furthermore; may the students here at Tufts never give up hope in other people's abilities to overcome even the most horrendous situations. We are so shielded we don't even know the half of what millions around the world go through. May we give them the benefit of the doubt and the faith that they will overcome. "As we let our own light shine, we unconsciously give other people the ability to do the same." - Nelson Mandela.