I totally agree with Black Kush. This report which lists Sudan as the number one failed state in the world is garbage:
I find the recently published Failed States Index 2007 utterly unbelievable and rubbish. It is one of these publications that doesn’t hold water. I have a lot of grievances with my country, but I don’t consider it a failed state. For this am sure.
The Index puts Sudan at the top of the list, followed by Iraq and Somalia. Every sane man on the planet knows that there is no government in Somalia for the last ten years. Actually there was no STATE! And how will you describe the carnage raging in Iraq, with a hopelessly impotent American-backed government? It is in a state of civil war, a government that doesn’t have control over its territories, etc.
…You can call Sudan what you want, but not failed: ask Somalis and Iraqis what they think first!
We certainly have a lot of problems and issues to fix, tons of them but check this. With civil war raging, billions of dollars in debt and even sanctions, we still managed to grow our economy by a damn 10%! A failed state certainly can’t achieve that level of economic growth.
SudaneseThinker
SudaneseThinker
{ 12 comments… read them below or add one }
Perhaps the authors of the index wanted to project their own views.
I disagree with Black Kush. Iraq’s economy is growing faster than Sudan’s and however hopless the government there is, they do manage to kill fewer people than Sudan’s. Several regions of Iraq are also doing tremendously well, including Kurdistan.
I think both the index and Black Kush are trying to push their agenda.
Iraq is not doing worse than Sudan, Iraq is merely better covered.
And then there are those who will tell you that economic growth is very possible exactly where the state has failed. I do not necessarily agree with that, but it does throw doubt on the implied argument that economic growth proves that a working state exists.
What is a failed state? By my definition a failed state is a state in which the government either cannot control the region it claims jurisdiction over or in which the government fails not in being able to control the region but in providing justice for its people.
The Sudanese government seems to have control over things, unfortunately. It fails not by being unable to govern, it fails by governing against justice.
The Iraqi government is doing well. All regions of Iraq are under its control and it can actually attack any insurgency everywhere, together with its allies, which is fine (because nobody says that you must not have allies).
The Palestinian Authority is a failed state. Their government cannot control their territory (and certainly not the territory they claim, aka all of Israel). Their government also failed to govern justly and to abide by treaties signed. I would put them on the top of the list.
Somalia didn’t have a government for a long time but at least the nominal government is sending positive signals, with the help of its foreign allies (Ethiopia and the US). Hence place 2 for Somalia, for the effort.
The government of Afghanistan is certainly not in control of all its assigned territory, even with the help of its allies. Number 3: Afghanistan.
Sudan is number 4, for me, a government in control but unjust, seeking unholy alliances and offending everyone around it. Not a stable situation at all, not in the long run.
And Russia would be place 5. While Russia seems stable and the government is in control of most of its territory, crime levels are so high, government “control” cannot really be taken seriously any more.
Lebanon, place 6, for effort.
But Iraq doesn’t even belong in the top 10 of failed states, not any more. When Saddam gased the Kurds, Iraq was a failed state (albeit with a strong government). When Saddam invited everyone to invade Iraq by invading Kuwait, Iraq was a failed state. And when Saddam killed hundreds of thousands of Shi’ites, Iraq was a failed state. But now Kurdistan is being rebuilt, the results of Saddam’s wars and tyranny are being repaired, and we are down to a few ten thousand dead because of increased terrorist activity (call it privatisation of a part of the economy that was under state control before), and Iraq’s government can certainly enforce its sovereignty, if only by relying on foreign allies.
But maybe the left will success and Iraq’s friends withdraw? Iraq can still make it to the top 10… just take away what they need.
I got a bit too emotional in this post.
“What is a failed state? By my definition a failed state is a state in which the government either cannot control the region it claims jurisdiction over or in which the government fails not in being able to control the region but in providing justice for its people.”
I think it does come down to the definition of a failed state and I do agree in general with your definition. I didn’t want this to be about comparing Sudan with Iraq, Somalia etc. but instead voicing my opinion about Sudan not being the number one failed state in the world. We are not. And no it’s not because of patriotism that I say but because I am Sudanese and I know my country better than observers who are on the outside. They don’t even mention what factors they base their judgements on. We’re the biggest country in Africa, a country so vast its Darfur region is the size of France. Yet the government has still managed to control it quite well given the limited resources. We have serious problems to deal with, but we are not a failed state.
Yes, I definitely agree that Sudan is NOT the number 1 failed state.
It’s not like the rest of Africa is doing so much better anyway.
Sudan doesn’t belong to the top 10 failed states, really. I can think of several other African countries, along with North Korea, Cuba, Yemen, Belarus, that push Sudan further down the list.
But Sudan still has a horrible track record.
While I don’t put much stock in these surveys, I must say that Sudan is quite a failure for the people in Darfur, and that alone shot up Sudan’s rating. When a government looks the other way and simply permits genocide of a particular ethnic group… well then, that’s a failed state.
“When a government looks the other way and simply permits genocide of a particular ethnic group… well then, that’s a failed state.”
Not if the government _wants_ that genocide to happen… A failed state would be one where the government CANNOT enforce its decisions.
“What is a failed state? By my definition a failed state is a state in which the government either cannot control the region it claims jurisdiction over or in which the government fails not in being able to control the region but in providing justice for its people.
The Sudanese government seems to have control over things, unfortunately. It fails not by being unable to govern, it fails by governing against justice.”
it also fails to provide the basic needs for its citizens
http://www.lemonde.fr/web/les_videos/0,59-0,64-882644,0.html#video_1
Apparently the 7 000 African UN forces have not been paid since last january, and because of that they do nothing, said Bernard Kouchner, and it will be not worthy of sending 20 000 more peacekeepers there if we can’t pay them.
a part of, the humanitarian associations fear that in sending more troops in Darfour, they we get in danger, possible revenges would target them
The world is too busy giving money to Hamas and the PLO and simply cannot afford to pay the peacekeepers in Sudan, or so it seems.
There is always money for war. But there is no money for peace.
till now, counties at war see their GDP increasing, simple !
what makes up a strong, thriving state? what are the models doing? the scandinavian examples at the top (or the bottom of the failed states list) have great social safety nets but are mostly homogenous societies with very little ethnic diversity, nevermind conflict…a glimpse into history shows their presence on the bottom of this list was inevitable.
We have to look back at the failures of the construction of African statehood since the Berlin Conference nevermind calling this or that state a ‘failed’ one. the ‘failed states’ shoppng list doesn’t really have much value since it begs the question whether or not statehood was a good idea in the first place and the 12 criteria used just reiterate high poverty, displaced peoples, and so many other problems imposed by monopolies/oligarchies that didn’t think to reinvest profits as they made them.
‘failed states’ is a meaningless discourse as is…
We have to look back at the failures of the construction of African statehood since the Berlin Conference nevermind calling this or that state a ‘failed’ one.
*raises eyebrow* So it’s back to blaming colonialism, then? Africans today fail because of the divisions made by the colonial powers? Oh, bother, back to square one again.
the ‘failed states’ shoppng list doesn’t really have much value since it begs the question whether or not statehood was a good idea in the first place and the 12 criteria used just reiterate high poverty, displaced peoples, and so many other problems imposed by monopolies/oligarchies that didn’t think to reinvest profits as they made them.
This entire debate is moot, as you can’t bring reality back over a hundred years into the past. What you have to handle is the reality today, where said states exist and said states fail to deliver. Living in the past and playing blame games won’t get you forward, it will just keep you stuck, stuck, and stuck. You think you can tear down Africa as it is today, start anew? By all means, try. But what I see in your arguments is chiefly led by blame-games and paranoia that is about as counter-productive as it gets.
The states in Africa exist. That’s the reality as it is. Live in past dreams at your own peril. Problems have a solution, and those do not involve blaming people who have been dead for the past several decades.
Leave a Comment