Failed States: The Genesis
Andrew Taylor, artistic director of 1215, provides some background to the Failed States project.
- What is a Failed State?
- Global Map of Failed States
- The Rationale Behind The Failed States Musical
- Some Sobering Facts
- How Did This Project Begin?
- Where Next With the Project?
What is a Failed State?
According to the Global Policy Forum, Failed States are those that "can no longer perform basic functions such as education, security, or governance, usually due to fractious violence or extreme poverty."
Wikipedia defines a Failed State as a "weak state in which the central government has little practical control over much of its territory."
Some of the most serious current examples of Failed States are: Ivory Coast, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Sudan, Iraq, Somalia, Sierra Leone, Chad, Yemen, Liberia and Haiti. Most are in Africa, but Failed States can be found worldwide. (It is interesting to note that many commentators and NGO's contend that Iraq has descended into Failed Statehood only in the post-Saddam era. Having a strong dictator in power, while arguably undesirable, often gives the nation's executive sufficient stability to prevent Failure of State.)
Global Map of Failed States
This map (courtesy of foreignpolicy.com) paints an alarming picture of the global situation. It includes not only recognised Failed States, but also those Failing States in danger of joining the list.
The issue of Failed States is now considered an important one. For much of the Twentieth Century, the great powers were busy worrying about each others' machinations, and the plight of Failing States was largely ignored. It is only in the last thirty years that Western Governments and powerful financial lobbies have begun to show serious concern. The alleged role of Failed States in fomenting international terrorism and regional military uncertainty is an unarguable factor in this change of thinking; as argued by a persuasive article in The Economist, "the chief reason why the world should worry about state failure is that it is contagious."
The argument that Failed States actively promote terrorism is, in fact, a weak one. Most Failed States are rendered impotent as they are torn apart by civil war, and impoverished local populations are the greatest victims rather than Western democracies. Afghanistan became a hotbed for terrorist activity not because of Failed State status, but because its government actively encouraged Osama Bin Laden to establish camps within its borders. And yet, time and again, we hear that Failed States are a threat, that their chaotic nature will unbalance world peace. Western leaders pick and choose as to whether Somalia or Syria or North Korea is to be next week's enemy number one; these countries' refusal to embrace democracy is often cited as a reason to fear them.
It is right for Western democracies to worry about Failed States, whether for our own selfish motives of fear or out of genuine altruistic concern for their long-suffering peoples, but we cannot be blasé and ignorant about the rampant and ongoing systematic erosion of our own democratic credentials. While watching out for the Failed States around the world, the very best example we can give of successful healthy statehood is to safeguard and protect out own hard won democratic rights and freedoms, or else we too can be said to have failed.
The Rationale
Ever since the sickening September 11th attacks on the USA, and the subsequent bombing of such targets as Bali, Madrid and London, Western democracies and their global allies have stepped up their counter-terrorism efforts to an unprecedented degree. So far, so good. One might argue persuasively that the first duty of a democratically elected government is to protect its own people from attack.
But what happens when the executive starts to take its responsibilities a little too far? What happens when a democratically elected government denies important civil rights to its own people? What if suspects are detained for months or even years without trial? What if judge, jury and even evidence itself are sidelined in the pursuit of quick and ruthlessly effective justice? What if politicians in Westminster go so far as to argue that evidence procured by torture should be admissible in a British courtroom, in stark contradiction to over five hundred years of English Common Law.
Such things can't happen in the United Kingdom, one might instantly claim. But they have: all of the above and much more. The British Police, the Security Services and the Home Secretary now have powers unparalleled in modern European history.
The Prime Minister and his Cabinet have a fundamental duty to protect Britain and her allies from terrorist attack, and in this aim they deserve our full support, but they also have an equally important responsibility to ensure the sustainability of hard won freedoms and human rights. These two remits go hand in hand: they must be balanced and one is no more important than the other.
Democracy is a beautiful and precious thing, but we forget all too easily how fragile it is. A democracy that defends itself by undemocratic means, surely loses the right to call itself a democracy.
Some Sobering Facts about Failed States
- Over one third of the world's population live in a Failed or Failing State
- The world's largest peacekeeping force is currently keeping a fragile peace in Liberia
- “America is now threatened less by conquering states than we are by failing ones” - US National Security Strategy 2001
And Some Facts Closer to Home:
- "Tony Blair's attitude to international law is undermining Britain's ability to promote respect for human rights and the rule of law in other parts of the world" - Philippe Sands QC
- The UK has recently concluded a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Jordan and Libya, and is pursuing others with Algeria and other countries in North Africa and the Middle East, to allow it to sidestep its moral and legal responsibility to not deport individuals to countries where they are likely to suffer human rights abuses. (Amnesty International UK)
- The House of Commons all-party Constitutional Affairs Committee decreed in 2005 that the system of Special Advocates and closed hearings currently used to assess the detention of terrorist suspects, "lacks the most basic features that make for a fair trial. To deprive someone of their liberty without telling them the charge or the evidence is completely foreign to our system of justice."
- In February 2006 Rizwan Ahmed, a British actor, was held at Luton Airport by Special Branch as he returned from the Berlin Film Festival. He was questioned, refused access to a lawyer, his wallet and mobile phone were taken from him and he was verbally abused. His crime? Appearing in a film that criticised Guantanamo Bay. He was even asked if he had become an actor "to publicise the struggles of the Muslims". The officers refused to give their names or fill in the correct documentation concerning the interview. Rizwan was later released without charge.
How Did This Project Begin?
In recent years the West has expressed voluble concern over democratic rights in a wide range of countries. Often at the top of the list of countries of concern are the so-called Failed and Failing States, where lawlessness prevails and corruption, civil war and the breeding of international terrorists are, we are told, at a premium.
Such concern is perhaps worthy. Some of the world's poorest peoples struggle to cope in Failed States torn apart by infighting and political mismanagement. And yet, at home, our own democratic credentials are increasingly suspect. The British Government seeks to lock up suspects without trial or charge for three whole months; two Home Secretaries in succession have failed to understand the crucial democratic importance of the separation of powers; our closest ally continues to hold several hundred suspects in a military prison so legally dubious it could never be built on US soil; perhaps most chilling of all, the Government has fought all the way to the Law Lords in its attempt to have evidence procured under torture made admissible in British law. Many UK citizens seem either unaware or unconcerned that such measures are being taken.
The United Kingdom is a Permanent Member of the UN Security Council, a leading nation within the EU, the leader of the Commonwealth and a member of the Council of Europe and the G8; the UK is also the closest military ally to the world's richest and most powerful nation, the USA. The global impact, therefore, of the UK's legal and moral decisions cannot be ignored. When Britain acts, countries abroad take note.
The logical question therefore becomes obvious: When the Government of a mature liberal Western democracy sets about systematically dismantling many of the key elements upon which democratic freedom stands (such as freedom of speech, habeas corpus, trial by judiciary and not by the executive, a clear separation of powers, an absolute bar on torture and the right to legal representation) which country is it that should now be considered Failed?
To argue that these steps are taken in order to protect the public is a specious claim. A Government which undoes over five hundred years of tried and tested English Common Law in the space of months is causing far more damage to the framework of British civilisation and freedom than any number of bombs placed on the Tube.
Just who, the question begs itself, are the real Failing States?