November Topic Overview

Resolved: Failed nations are a greater threat to the United States than stable nations.

Background

One of your first tasks when preparing to debate this topic will be to define "failed nations."  The term nation is synonymous with state, and the most frequent term used to describe those nations that have failed in the literature is "failed state."  I imagine that the framers of this resolution chose to use nation to prevent debaters from arguing that states like California should be classified as "failed."    

Article 1 of the 1933 Montevideo Convention on Rights and Duties of States gives four qualifications of a state: a) a permanent population; b) a defined territory; c) government; and d) capacity to enter into relations with other states. If one of these qualifications is not met the entity cannot be defined or act as a state by this standard.[i]

Most states on the verge of collapse end up losing their statehood based on qualifications c and d. Robert Rotberg, Director of the Program on Intrastate Conflict and Conflict Resolution at Harvard University says, "Nation-states fail because they are convulsed by internal violence and can no longer deliver positive political goods to their inhabitants. Their governments lose legitimacy, and the very nature of the particular nation-state itself becomes illegitimate in the eyes and in the hearts of a growing plurality of its citizens." [ii]  Another helpful resource for understanding failed states is the essay "The Failed State and International Law," by Daniel Thürer, Dr. jur., LL.M.[iii]

A complete list of failed states is compiled each year by the think tank Fund for Peace, and is published by Foreign Policy Magazine. Among the failed states are Zimbabwe, Sudan, Chad, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Ethiopia, Haiti and Burma, among others. (For a full list visit: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/06/22/2009_failed_states_index_interactive_map_and_rankings)

For purposes of this analysis, "stable nations" will be defined as those that meet the four qualifications given by the Montevideo Convention.

Other than the definitions of "failed states" and "stable nations," the topic is fairly straight forward. The affirmative must advocate that failed states are a greater threat than stable nations, and negatives must find a way to argue that they are not, either by saying that stable nations are a greater threat, they are an equal threat, or that failed nations are not a threat at all. While the first argument will definitely be the most conducive to a debate round, debaters should be prepared for all three arguments.

Affirmative

First, affirmatives can argue that failed states are breeding grounds for rogue, dangerous organizations. Failed states are typically states where the government either does not exist, or has so little control that they may as well not exist. This is a perfect environment for extremist groups-think al Qaeda in Afghanistan. John Yoo, Professor of Law at the University of California Berkley says, "States that lose centralized government may become anarchic areas where terrorist groups can freely build resources, train their operatives, and use as bases from which to launch attacks.  Parts of Yemen, for example, appear to be ungovernable due to a weak central government, which has allowed operatives of the al Qaeda terrorist network to hide there." [iv]

Second, along these same lines, failed states are a breeding ground for illegal activity. Until recently (and to an extent, even now) Afghanistan was a huge exporter of opium. Cocaine farms and shipping bases plague Columbia, and Sierra Leone's black diamond market has made hundreds of violent criminals very rich. But those are only a few examples. These types of countries practice human trafficking, illegal small arms dealing, and often aid in the proliferation of mass destruction technologies.

Illegal weapons have become particularly harmful in failed countries, according to Rachel Stohl and Col. Dan Smith in their essay "Small Arms in Failed States: A deadly combination," "Small arms and light weapons have certain characteristics that make them the weapon of choice for countries and groups involved in armed conflict. Small arms are attractive because of their low cost and wide availability, lethality, simplicity and durability, portability and concealability, and military, police, and civilian uses." They note that these weapons make their way into countries during periods of civil war or general fighting, and simply stay around. Their prevalence and aptitude for destruction makes them appealing to those looking to make a quick buck.

This kind of illegal arms trade has led to increased violence in failed states, well equipped rogue forces, and the continued arming of terrorist organizations. International outreach missions to failed states have become alarmingly difficult because of these weapons, and organizations are harder to negotiate with because they are now armed and ready to fight.

Third, negotiating with failed states is virtually impossible and often requires direct intervention or war. As a rule of thumb, only "states" can participate in international relations. Article 2(1)(a) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties defines a treaty as "an international agreement concluded between States in written form and governed by international law." Since these "failed states" have no centralized government, even if they were to enter a treaty with an outside state it could not be enforced, nor could it be truly recognized by international law.

According to Yoo, "Failed states thus create a central problem for international law and politics.  As a matter of international law, the absence of a state precludes the possibility that a territory or population can make treaties or engage in international relations.  As a matter of international politics, the collapse of central government means that nations cannot engage in reciprocal and mutually beneficial relationships with that territory and population, or deter and compel action there by a government."

Because of this, in that vast majority of cases, failed states must be handled through direct military intervention. The United States can typically appeal to stable nations through threat of economic sanctions, international criticism, or through a written mutually beneficial agreement. Economic sanctions do not effect failed states, since they have virtually no economy. International criticism cannot have an effect on a nation if they have no central government and no economy, and mutually beneficial agreements cannot be enforced, and are thus useless.

Fourth, failed states are incubators for severe human rights disasters. Yoo states, "In Somalia, Rwanda, Haiti, and the former Yugoslavia, failed states have produced the catastrophic human rights disasters.  Since the end of World War II, far more lives have been lost due to internal wars than international armed conflicts, and many of the former have occurred in failed states.  Military intervention in response, often led by the United States and its allies, incurs high costs in terms of money, material, and lives."

Consider the current human rights violations that are taking place. The first places that come to mind are The Congo and Sudan. These countries are classified as "failed" by the Failed State Index and cannot get a handle on the overwhelming amount of violence and internal turmoil because of the lack of governmental control. International forces have been wary to get involved because of the huge amount of resources and lives that would be spent diffusing the ticking time-bombs that are these nations.   

Stable nations generally do not produce human rights violations. At least not nearly to the extent that failed nations do. In stable nations, citizens are able to voice their opinion and remove the oppressive powers. In failed states, this cannot happen because there is no mechanism for removing the oppression.

Affirmatives can argue that the United States has a moral obligation to become involved in these events. Involvement in Bosnia, Panama, and even Iraq has been justified in moral terms. Human rights violations are accepted as bad, and citizens of the United States generally want them to stop. When the United States gets involved in these places, our risk is much higher since we are not dealing with a centralized government, but instead a large amount of independent forces.

Fifth, the human rights violations, the amount of uncertainty and fear, and the lack of resources in failed states result in a huge flow of refugees into more developed and stable nations. A simple look at the latest statistics will show you that an overwhelming majority of refugees come from failed nations. [v]  In 1993 Somalia produced huge amounts of refugees, which burdened not only bordering nations, but also the United States. Periodically, Haiti has suffered such turmoil that the United States has had to hold the door open for an overwhelming number of refugees.

Refugees are typically uneducated and may even be in poor health. Affirmatives can argue that they pose a burden to the countries that accept them because of their inability to function without a significant amount of help. With the population increase that the United States is facing without refugees, the amount of refugees from failed states that seek refuge here becomes particularly detrimental.

Negative

There are many arguments available to negatives on this topic.  First, the negative can argue that stable nations pose a greater economic threat to the United States than failed nations. Failed nations arguably have no economy, and unless something catastrophic happened to make the state "fail," they have had a poor economy for a long time. The world market has adjusted to that and there is no negative effect. Arguably, the world economy is not hugely influenced by the economies of The Congo, Sudan, or Haiti, but if Britain, Russia, or China's economy were to suddenly crash, the United States would be in for a severe economic depression.[vi]

Second, developed and stable nations can take over our role as the world hegemon.  Countries like China and India are gaining economic and military ground quickly, and within the next decade may be competing with us for international power.  Negatives can argue that the United States has a vested interest in protecting its hegemonic status because it allows us great influence over other countries.

The negative can also argue that the United States as a hegemon has its benefits to the world. The United States is well known for acting as the "police" for the entire world. Zalmay Khalilzad, current U.S. Ambassador to Iraq says, "A world in which the U.S. exercises leadership would preclude the rise of another hostile global rival, enabling the world to avoid another global cold or hot war, and all the attendant dangers, including global nuclear exchange."[vii]

Clearly, a world war would be a threat to the United States. The United States gains direct benefit by remaining in its position as a global hegemon. Not only do we prevent war, but we gain more material things by remaining in such a position. We tend to be better off in trade agreements, and we have a strong voice in the United Nations.

Third, the negative can argue that the only reason that terrorists and failed nations are a problem is because of weapons that are produced and distributed by stable nations. While it is true that many terrorists operate on Soviet-era weapons, it is just as true that they are operating with new technology that has only recently been produced out of developed and stable countries.  China openly trades arms with Sudanese fighters and militias, much to international chagrin, and Russia is rumored to have shipped weapons to Damascus that ended up in the hands of terrorists all over the area.

Regardless of the international policies that are put in place to combat the spread of weapons to failed nations, there will always be a steady flow of weapons as long as there is money to be made. Research on weapons sources in failing nations will give you a long list of more developed countries who have supplied weapons.

Fourth, many stable nations have nuclear weapons. While it is true that failed states may be a breeding ground for terrorist organizations, the negative can argue that most terrorist organizations are not organized or technologically advanced enough to have weapons of the caliber that developed nations have and can produce in mass quantities. Arguably, angering a stable nation poses a greater danger than angering a failed nation.

Looking at the latest count of nuclear weapons will show you just how many nuclear weapons developed nations possess. Even if it isn't a particularly likely situation, it is certainly a situation that is more threatening and more deadly.  (For more visit: http://www.cdi.org/nuclear/database/nukestab.html)

Fifth, the negative can argue that most failed states are not a danger to the United States. With the obvious exception of Afghanistan, the majority of failed states have never been a direct threat to the United States. The majority of the world's failed states are located in sub-Saharan Africa, and while most of them are the locations of genocides and civil rights violations, those things do not affect the United States at all except from a moral standpoint. Negatives can argue that the affirmative should not be able to win the round on an exception to the rule.

Sixth, stable nations are organized. While it might be true that it is more likely that members of a failed nation would want to do us harm, they are not organized to carry out their wishes in a succinct and effective manner. Most instances, especially since 9/11, of planned terrorist attacks have been discovered and dealt with before the incident took place. Stable nations, on the other hand, have the resources, manpower, and ability to surprise.

Stable nations typically have a military, weapons, and good government control. These three things are the perfect blueprint for swift military action. If a stable nation wanted to go to attack us, we would be left with very little notice because of their ability to move so quickly.

[i] Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, 1993 http://www.jus.uio.no/treaties/01/1-02/rights-duties-states.xml

[ii] Rotberg, Robert I. "Failed States, Collapsed States, Weak States: Causes and Indicators."http://wilsoncenter.org/topics/docs/statefailureandstateweaknessinatimeofterror.pdf

[iii] Daniel Thürer, Dr. jur., LL.M. "The ‘Failed State' and International Law." http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/57JQ6U

[iv] Yoo, John. "Failed States," http://www.law.northwestern.edu/colloquium/international/Yoo.pdf

[v] "US Refugee Program: Current Fiscal Year Admission Statistics," Cultural Orientation Research Center. http://www.cal.org/co/refugee/statistics/index.html

[vi] Mazetti, Mark. "Global Economy Top Threat to U.S., Spy Chief Says," New York Times, February 12, 2009. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/13/washington/13intel.html

[vii] Khalilzad, Zalmay. "Losing the Moment? The United States and the World After the Cold War," Washington Quarterly, Spring, 95.