Weak States and Global Threats – Comprehensive Study Notes

The central claim is that the gravest dangers to international order now stem from poorly governed (weak/failing) states rather than rival great powers due to their capacity to generate diverse spillovers like terrorism, WMD proliferation, transnational crime, global pandemics, energy insecurity, and regional instability. This post-9/119/11 shift in perception from humanitarian concern to direct security threat necessitates a fine-grained analysis of state strength, defined by a state's capacity and will to provide physical security, legitimate political institutions, economic management, and social welfare. Effective policy, therefore, must be integrated, threat-specific, gap-sensitive (addressing political, security, economic, or social deficiencies), and country-specific to efficiently allocate finite resources, as preventive action against state failure is ultimately more cost-effective than post-collapse intervention.

Page 1

• Citation block: Article by Stewart Patrick in The Washington Quarterly, Volume $29:2$, Spring $2006$, pp. $27-53$.
• Access originally provided through University of California, Santa Barbara on 24 Nov $2014$ at $18{:}59$ GMT.

Page 2

• Central claim: Gravest dangers now stem from poorly governed (weak / failing) states, not rival great powers.
• Enumerated spillovers: humanitarian catastrophes, mass migration, environmental degradation, regional instability, energy insecurity, global pandemics, international crime, proliferation of WMD, transnational terrorism.
• Francis Fukuyama quote: Weak/failing states are the “single-most important problem for international order.”
• Condoleezza Rice – nations lacking “responsible sovereignty” cause terrorism & proliferation.
• Pre-$9/11$: weak states viewed mainly through humanitarian lens. Post-$9/11$: President George W. Bush – “America is now threatened less by conquering states than we are by failing ones.”
• Institutional consequences already visible: U.S. defense, intelligence, diplomacy, development, trade strategies adapted.
• National Defense Strategy: U.S. military tasked to strengthen sovereign capacities of weak states.

Page 3

• Pentagon expanding training of foreign forces; pursuing an inter-agency plan for “ungoverned spaces.”
• CIA has mapped $50$ such zones and shifted collection assets.
• National Intelligence Council (NIC) & new State Department Office of the Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization flag collapse-risk states for conflict prevention.
• USAID produced “Fragile States Strategy” – terror, crime, instability, disease prevention.
• CAFTA even justified as preventing state failure spillovers.
• International echo:
– U.K. Prime Minister’s Strategy Unit – whole-of-government fragile-states approach.
– Canada & Australia following suit.
– UN reform theme: effective sovereignty; Kofi Annan: “threat to one is a threat to all … weakest link.”
– $09/2005$: UN Peacebuilding Commission created.
– OECD/DAC $01/2005$ “Fragile States” with the World Bank LICUS program.
• Warning: policy rests largely on anecdotes (Afghanistan, Colombia). Danger of diffuse effort & misplaced priorities.

Page 4

• Call for fine-grained analysis: map which states generate which threats.
• Competing tallies of fragile states:
– Commission on Weak States: $50!\text{--}!60$
– U.K. DFID: $46$ states, $870$ million people.
– World Bank LICUS: $30$.
• State strength = ability and will to provide 4 “political goods”:

1. Physical security

2. Legitimate political institutions

3. Economic management

4. Social welfare
   • Many possess legal but not actual sovereignty. Security gaps include monopoly of force, border control. Political gaps: legitimacy, checks & balances, rights. Economic: macro policy, regulatory climate. Social: health/education basics.

Page 5

• Spectrum: from fully collapsed (Somalia) to fragile “good performers” (Senegal).
• Millennium Challenge Account (MCA) rewards those ruling justly, investing in people, promoting economic freedom – weak states often ineligible.
• Capacity vs. Will yields 4 categories (Table 1):

1. High Cap / Strong Will – “Relatively good performers” (e.g., Senegal, Honduras).

2. High Cap / Low Will – “Unresponsive, corrupt, repressive” (e.g., Burma, Zimbabwe).

3. Low Cap / Strong Will – “Weak but willing” (e.g., Mozambique, East Timor).

4. Low Cap / Low Will – “Weak & not willing” (e.g., Haiti, Sudan).
   • Fragile states: farthest from MDGs, $15$× more prone to civil war than OECD states, major sources of refugees & rights abuses.

Page 6

• World Bank Governance Matters IV (2005) ranks $209$ jurisdictions via 6 dimensions (voice, stability, gov. effectiveness, regulation, rule of law, corruption control).
• Bottom quintile list of $44$ countries – weakest $=$ Somalia, strongest $=$ Algeria.
• Observation 1: Weakest ≠ poorest (e.g., Venezuela is lower-middle income yet in bottom quintile).
• Observation 2: Bottom-tier states pose varied U.S. challenges: WMD aspirants (North Korea, Iran), terror havens (Afghanistan, Yemen), energy suppliers (Venezuela, Nigeria), pandemic loci (Angola, DRC), humanitarian crises (Sudan).
• Observation 3: Certain threats emerge from next tier up – e.g., Colombia (cocaine), Saudi Arabia (Sept $11$ hijackers), Russia (transnational crime). Even several are MCA-eligible.

Page 7

• Two propositions underlie the debate:

1. Security must encompass cross-border threats from non-state actors & forces.

2. These threats largely originate in weak governance of developing world.
   • Traditionalists: only existential interstate threats matter. Expanded view: violence paradigm must include purposive (terror) & non-purposive (“threats without a threatener” e.g., pandemics, climate).
   • Pivotal weak states (Pakistan, DPRK) obvious; others less predictable (Afghanistan pre-$2001$). Need mapping of which states link to which threats: terrorism, WMD, crime, disease, energy, instability.

Page 8 – Terrorism

• Common narrative: failed states invite terrorists. Data: $1991!–!2001$ most individual terrorists hailed from low-income authoritarian conflict states (Sudan, Algeria, Afghanistan).
• $2003!–!2005$: Majority of U.S.–designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations operate from weak/failing states.
• Weak states provide: havens, conflict experience, training, funds, staging grounds, recruits.
• Al Qaeda examples: bases in Sudan/Afghanistan, attacks via Kenya & Yemen, diamond financing from conflict zones.
• U.S. responses:
– Sahel border training (DoD).
– $<br>\text{National Strategy for Combating Terrorism}$ emphasizes alleviating poverty & governance.
– Bush $09/2005$ UN speech: raise up failing states.

Page 9 – Terrorism Nuances

• Not all weak states face terrorism (only $\approx$ $49$ least-developed yet “hardly any terrorist activity”). Distribution influenced by political, cultural variables; concentrated in Middle East & Muslim world.
• Distinguish domestic insurgency (FARC, LTTE) vs. transnational jihad.
• Terrorists prefer weak-but-functioning states (Pakistan, Kenya) over collapsed vacuums; need banking, telecom, airports.
• Post-$2001$ Al Qaeda now diffuse, self-financing cells; European diaspora key (Paris banlieues).
• Today’s critical failed state for terror ⇒ Iraq (post-invasion magnet).
• Governance gaps most relevant: Political suppression & Security vacuum. Social/economic gaps facilitate radical charities/financing.
• Capacity vs. Will: Saudi & Pakistan have resources but limited will to crack down.

Page 10 – WMD Proliferation

• $13/17$ non-P5 WMD states are “countries at risk of instability.” Greatest fear: nuclear-armed weak state loses control (Pakistan, DPRK).
• A.Q. Khan network – clandestine tech sales to Iran, Libya, DPRK. Enabled by corruption in Pakistan & weak export controls in Malaysia, South Africa, Turkey.
• Small arms/light weapons: >640 million circulating. Weak states = source, transit, destination. Example: $1999$ Ukraine $\rightarrow$ Burkina Faso $\rightarrow$ Liberia $\rightarrow$ Sierra Leone rebels ($68$ tons munitions).

Page 11 – Proliferation Gaps

• WMD risks tied mainly to security & political shortcomings (civilian oversight, corruption).
• Small-arms diffusion linked also to economic failures & porous borders. Capacity shortfalls hinder policing; Will shortfalls enable state complicity.

Page 12 – Transnational Crime

• Narcotics business worth $\$300\text{–}\$500$ billion / yr ($\approx$ global auto $
$ or oil).
• Money laundering $=2!\text{–}!5\%$ world GDP $\Rightarrow$ $\$800$ b–$2$ trillion (Michel Camdessus).
• Globalization: communications, deregulated finance, open trade $\Rightarrow$ new illicit opportunities.
• Criminals exploit functional holes in weak states (rule-of-law deficits, corruption). UNODC: Africa “ideal conduit” for drugs, arms, minerals, people.

Page 13 – Crime Sectors & Geography

• Conflict & post-conflict zones (Colombia, DRC, Bosnia, Kosovo) magnets.
• Profit logic: criminal networks balance risk vs. reward – thus South Africa & Nigeria ➟ hubs; Togo less so.
• Sector variance:
– Narcotics & human trafficking closely linked to weak states (e.g., $90\%$ of global heroin from Afghanistan, Burma #2 for opium).
– Human trafficking $\$7\text{–}\$8$ billion; $\approx800{,}000$ victims cross borders annually. Weak states dominate worst-offender list.

Page 14 – Crime & Governance Gaps

• Money laundering & cyber-crime need advanced banking ➟ concentrated in wealthy or middle-income states, though proceeds originate in weak states.
• Crime correlated with poor economic & political institutions; social insecurity secondary.
• Over time criminal capture of elites converts capacity into lack of will for enforcement.

Page 15 – Infectious Disease

• >30 new pathogens since $1973$; >20 resurgent diseases. $90\%$ of burden falls on low/middle-income states which account for $11\%$ of global health spending.
• Armed Forces Medical Intelligence Center 5-tier scale – bottom $2$ quintiles suffer 7 deadliest diseases: respiratory, HIV/AIDS, diarrheal, TB, malaria, hepatitis B, measles. Sub-Saharan Africa: $10\%$ world pop. but $75\%$ HIV & $90\%$ malaria.

Page 16 – Disease Drivers & Examples

• Conflict collapses health systems: Northern Burma ➟ seed strains for S./SE Asia HIV; DRC multiple HIV strains.
• Post-war demobilization spreads HIV (e.g., Ethiopia).
• Weak infrastructure: Post-Soviet spike in measles/TB/HIV; $2005$ Angola Marburg outbreak; Nigerian polio boycott exported virus to Yemen/Saudi Arabia/Indonesia.

Page 17 – Disease Costs & Governance

• SARS cost East Asia $\$20\text{–}\$25$ b yet killed only $912$ people.
• HIV/AIDS undermines African state capacity, fiscal systems, armies; NIC forecasts up to $110$ million global cases by $2010$ (India, China, Russia surges).
• Epidemic threat mainly a capacity issue; salient gap = social welfare (public health).

Page 18 – Energy Insecurity

• $2005$ oil price doubled; global demand rise + depleted spare capacity.
• China $2004$ oil imports +$40\%$; now #2 importer.
• $60\%$ of world oil reserves in states “facing stability challenges.” Chokepoints: Straits of Hormuz & Malacca, Trans-Caucasus pipelines.
• U.S. crude import dependence: $34\%$ (1973) $\rightarrow$ $58\%$ (2005); $\tfrac{1}{3}$ from Venezuela, Nigeria, Iraq, Angola. Forecast $68\%$ by $2015$ with $25\%$ from Gulf of Guinea.

Page 19 – Energy & Governance

• Producer typology:
– High capacity / low will autocrats (Venezuela, Iran) – political unpredictability.
– Low capacity democracies (Nigeria, Iraq) – insecurity & sabotage.
• “Trust-fund states” reliance on rents discourages institution-building (Fareed Zakaria).
• Governance gaps: political & economic (corruption, state abuse).

Page 20 – Regional Instability

• Weak states export violence, refugees, contagion to neighbors.
• Liberia under Charles Taylor destabilized Sierra Leone, Guinea, Côte d’Ivoire – classic “bad neighborhood.”
• Reciprocal effect: regional conflict formations (Great Lakes, Central Asia) embed civil wars.
• Weak/failing states $\rightarrow$ majority of $\approx30$ U.S. military interventions (1960-2005) & $55$ UN PKOs.
• World Bank estimates cost of a single state failure = $\$82.4$ billion (> total annual ODA $\$79$ b).

Page 21 – Policy Road Map

• Need intelligence to map which weak states produce which spillovers.
• Key analytic dimensions: Capacity vs. Will; 4 governance gaps.
• Initial linkages (Table 3):
• Terrorism & WMD ⇢ mainly will gaps.
• Disease & small-arms ⇢ mainly capacity gaps.
• Crime, energy, regional instability ⇢ both.
• Governance-gap matrix (Table 4):
– Terrorism, proliferation, instability ⇢ Political & Security gaps.
– Disease ⇢ Social gap.
– Crime & energy ⇢ Political & Economic gaps.

Page 22 – Early Warning & Prioritization

• NIC semi-annual “Instability Watch List” (since $2004$) identifies 2-year collapse risks; must add consequence matrix (oil shocks, regional war, epidemics).
• Busy officials need actionable prioritization to trigger preventive action.

Page 23 – Integrated U.S. Strategy

• Current U.S. approach fragmented across diplomacy, defense, aid, trade, finance.
• Need unified three-Ds coordination (defense, development, diplomacy) + intel/finance/trade at Washington & embassy (country-team) levels.
• Engagement logic by typology:

1. Capacity gap ➟ technical/financial assistance.

2. Will gap ➟ incentives/pressure (sanctions, conditionality).

3. Both gaps ➟ mix; empower civil society & reformers.

Page 24 – Multilateral Cooperation

• U.S. should drive coherent responses in G-8, UN, NATO, OAS, OECD, World Bank, EU, AU, ASEAN.
• Developed & developing interests align: poorer countries are principal victims of crime, disease, terror.
• Reality check: Resources finite; cannot rebuild every weak state. Must set priorities informed by above analysis.

Page 25 – References & Further Reading

• Extensive footnotes cite Fukuyama $[1]$, PMSU $[7]$, Kaufmann et al. $[14]$, Garrett $[41]$, etc. Key datasets: Governance Matters, Small Arms Survey, NIC reports, UNODC.

Page 26 – Conceptual Takeaways

• State weakness is multidimensional (capacity + will across 4 goods).
• Spillovers are threat-specific; blanket assertions mask this variation.
• Policy must be threat-sensitive, gap-sensitive, and country-specific to allocate scarce resources efficiently.
• Preventive action cheaper than post-collapse intervention (failure cost $\$82.4$ b).