Survey: Sudan, Iraq Most Unstable Nations
Iraq is now the second-most unstable country in the world, a private survey finds, its standing deteriorating from last year's fourth place on a list of the 10 nations most vulnerable to violent internal conflict and worsening conditions.
In the third annual "Failed States Index," analysts for Foreign Policy magazine and the non-profit Fund for Peace said that Iraq and Afghanistan, which ranked eighth, show that billions of dollars in development and security aid may be futile without a functioning government, trustworthy leaders and realistic plans to keep the peace and develop the economy.
"The 'Failed States Index' for this year has some predictable nations on the list, such as Sudan (the most failed), Somalia and Chad," said CBS News Foreign Affairs Analyst Pamela Falk. "But the troublesome conclusion for the Bush administration is that Iraq ranks as the second-most unstable state and Afghanistan the eighth — both nations where the U.S. has boots on the ground and an interest in the success of the government."
Preventing Iraq from becoming a failed state is a key part of the Bush administration's argument for keeping U.S. troops in the country; the administration says the troops are needed to keep Iraq from becoming a breeding ground for international terrorists.
The ratings are based on 12 social, economic, political and military indicators, such as: institutionalized political exclusion; "brain drain" of professionals, intellectuals and political dissidents fearing persecution or repression; massive and endemic corruption or profiteering by ruling elites; widespread loss of popular confidence in state institutions; deterioration of essential services (such as health, education, sanitation and public transportation); and widespread violation of human rights.
Sudan, which topped the list, and seven other sub-Saharan African countries are among the top 10. Violence in the Darfur region was the main contributing cause to Sudan's top position.
The Failed States Index 2007: Greatest Instability
1. Sudan
2. Iraq
3. Somalia
4. Zimbabwe
5. Chad
6. Ivory Coast
7. Democratic Republic of the Congo
9. Afghanistan
10. Guinea
11. Central African Republic
12. Haiti
13. Pakistan
14. North Korea
15. Myanmar (Burma)
16. Uganda
17. Bangladesh
18. Nigeria
19. Ethiopia
20. Burundi
21. Timor-Leste
The 2007 index includes 177 nations, compared with 148 in 2006 and 75 in 2005; several countries were not included due to a lack of data.
As evidence that troubles in failing states often cross borders, the report cited violence spilling from Darfur into the Central African Republic and Chad.
Another African country, Liberia, was credited as the most improved, partly because an election in 2005 brought stability after more than a decade of civil war.
"Worrisome as well is the fact that two of the top fifteen failed states, North Korea and Pakistan, have nuclear weapons," said Falk, "and the study concludes that North Korea's possibility of economic collapse and Pakistan's lawless borders make them very dangerous to the rest of the world."
Liberia's economy is growing at 7 percent a year and it has disbanded its militia. Still, it ranked as 27th-most failing state.
The growth of China's economy and a lull in violence in Chechnya helped China and Russia, respectively, to move out of the category of the 60 worst states.
Lebanon experienced the biggest slide, winding up in 28th place; war in the Middle Eastern country reversed much of the progress made since the end of its 15-year-long civil war in 1990.
Usually, long-serving strongmen preside over a nation's collapse, the report said. For instance, it said, three of the five worst performing states — Chad, Sudan and Zimbabwe — have leaders who have been in power for more than 15 years.
On the other hand, effective leadership can pull a nation from the brink of failure, the report said. It cited Indonesia's first directly-elected president, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, as helping to steer the Southeast Asian country to stability after corruption and the devastation of the 2004 tsunami.
But even countries in the developed world are prone to problems, as evidenced by the United States placing 160 out of 177.
"According to the survey, the United States seemed to have failed some of the 12 indicators," Falk said.
"A major factor behind the high or poor score for the U.S. in human rights is indeed the erosion of civil liberties as part of the war on terrorism — a major source of the reports being Guantanamo Bay," Krista Hendry of the Fund for Peace told Falk. "Indefinite detention, the suspension of habeas corpus, and reports of harsh and severe treatment of detainees all are reflected in the high score."
"We would anticipate a change in policy on this particular issue could go a long way to improving the U.S. score in future [reports]," Hendry added.
And what nations were the least unstable — the "top 10," as it were? Canada, Australia, Denmark, Iceland, New Zealand, Switzerland, Ireland, Sweden, Finland, and at the top, Norway.
Pauline H. Baker, president of the Fund for Peace, said 12,000 sources were used to compile the ratings.
In an interview, she said foreign aid remained necessary even though spending alone will not prevent failure.
"You just cannot turn your eyes away from mass atrocities, which often accompany failing states," she said.
As examples of long-range impact of failure, Baker cited the effect turmoil in Sudan, an oil-producing state, could have on world oil supplies and mentioned the massive migration from Somalia, predominantly across Africa.
"The world's weakest states aren't just a danger to themselves," the report said. "They can threaten the progress and stability of countries half a world away."