Are states 'failed' or have they been 'failed'?
The indications of a failed state can be thought of as the economic, political, and social instability of a state and when security and control within a state are not met. Just by reading these aspects of states, a general consensus of the distinction of which states are believed to be failed states and non-failed states are made. Usually, the states that are considered failed (in the present) are found to be in the Global South. This immediate assumption tends to erase the histories of these states and awards them with full responsibility of their ‘failure’.
Farmer discusses the idea of how “the erasure of history is subtle and incremental and depends upon the erasure of links across time and space” in his article titled “An Anthropology of Structural Violence” (2001). The erasure of history is severely detrimental to states as they are denied the origin of many of their issues. Such as in the case of Jamaica being colonised by the United Kingdom. Jamaica was left with no sustainable, built-up economy when they became independent as they had been dependent on the British. Since Jamaica has been independent, the people there have been faced with economical, political, and social instability as well as not having human security (adequate health care, schooling, etc.). On top of this, external intervention has exasperated the failed state status Jamaica has been deemed.
As well as colonisation, intervention is another way that states are failed. In the case of Jamaica, intervention from the IMF (International Monetary Fund) and the World Bank lead to imports flooding the Jamaican markets and denying the success of local goods and the Jamaican economy. Haiti has been faced with a very similar issue. American farmers are subsidised for growing rice which is then imported into Haiti where there are low tariffs. The unsubsidised rice farmers in Haiti can simply not compete with imported American rice and therefor the Haitian economy has not developed. On a more individual level than that, the local farmers do not have their human security met as they are virtually jobless and without income.
When people of a state are in poverty, all aspects of the state will be unstable which poses threats to the state itself and all others worldwide. In Rice’s speech titled “The National Security Implications of Global Poverty” (2005), she establishes how each failed state is a “weak spot in a world in which maximal cooperation from states everywhere is necessary to reduce and contain transnational threats” such as “infectious disease, environmental degradation, international crime and drug syndicates, proliferation of small arms and weapons of mass destruction and, of course, terrorism”. This explains the interconnectedness of all states and their issues and insecurities.
To say that states in the Global South are simply failed states is incorrect. The examples of Jamaica and Haiti only show a glimpse into the reality of how states have been failed. These states are easily described as failed on their own account as this allows for the states who have failed others to be let off the hook. Protecting a state’s image over admitting historical wrongdoings (such as colonisation and intervention) is a selfish act. Hopefully, this selfishness could be translated into enacting actions to aid world issues that ultimately affect the states that have failed others.
I agree that states that are deemed as 'failed' are often a product of their environment. Your point with Jamaica was solid that organizations have interference that lead to lack of growth for Jamaica. My question to you would be what enabled countries like America to be successful? Every great power was once nothing, so how does a state break through from a small, weak state to become powerful?
ReplyDeleteI would argue that great powers today have only come about through taking advantage and stealing from other nations in their histories. For example, the slave trade in the United States. America's use of enslaved people is what allowed for the nation to have its economic power today. In the 1800s, the world's largest commodity was cotton which was focused and grown on American soil by stolen people from various nations in Africa. The slave trade was the "economic engine" for the United States. This truth of using others to leverage oneself to the top of power is not an uncommon one.
DeleteI think that the point which you made in your last paragraph about colonization and intervention causing the failure of states is extremely important. So frequently the negative effects of colonization and intervention and completely glossed over and the "failed state" is blamed instead, even though they are the victims. How can a state be expected to succeed if they are not even fully in control of their own government, trade, or economy?
ReplyDeleteTo answer Austin's question, British colonizations created many negative impacts for the Native Americans who already inhabited the Americans and those people are still suffering the consequences today. The creation of America disrupted civilizations that already existed. America was able to thrive because there was nobody else involved in their government or economy, therefore, there was no party that was able to make drastic changes or suddenly leave, creating chaos. America was governed by their own people while Jamaica was governed by an English colony.