This essay is about the controversy in the failed states debate in international politics with Iraq as an example. The author argues that anticipated retaliation without the UN mandate is a danger to world peace.
Before the terrorists attack on Washington and New York, experts in International Relations were discussing and analyzing the clash of civilization by Huttington, an American political scientist. According to Huttington, the next conflict that will confront mankind in the 21st century would be a class of civilization. He identified some major civilizations which include the western civilization, the Islamic civilization, the Hindu civilization, the Hispanic civilization, the Japanese civilization, the Jewish civilization and may be an African civilization.
When the incident of September 11 occurred, many people thought that is a confirmation of Huttington’s theory, but Huttington himself refused to regard the attacks as a clash between the western and Islamic civilizations. This very question was put to Gerhard Schroeder and other western leaders and they all refused to consider this event as a clash of cultures. But what I find contradictory is that these same leaders claim that September 11 was not only an attack on America but an attack on the western civilization or the civilized world.
Due to Bush’s new war on terrorism, most authorities on International Relations are focusing now on failed states. According to them, failed states are the greatest threat to the world and have no right to exist. Failed states are states that are unable to provide essential services to their people like security, which they consider the most important factor, social services like hospitals, schools, and even employment. Researchers claim that failed states are the breeding ground of terrorists, and classical examples according to them are Afghanistan, Somalia, DRC, Columbia, Rwanda, Iraq just to name but these. The debate on failed states like that of terrorism is a complex one.
If we want to analyse the debate on failed states critically, we have to look at the source of the recent debate, colonialism, the bipolar world, the US hegemonic power and international security.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
A. Meaning and theories explaining failed states
2. Failed states and international security.
3. Iraq as an example
4. Conclusion
5. Bibliography
Objectives and Research Focus
This work aims to critically analyze the discourse surrounding "failed states" and the geopolitical implications of this concept in international relations, with a specific focus on the invasion of Iraq. The author questions the legitimacy of state failure as a pretext for international intervention and explores how strategic and economic interests, rather than purely humanitarian concerns, drive the policies of global powers.
- The theoretical origins and critique of the "failed state" definition.
- The link between the end of the Cold War and the increase in state failures.
- An examination of the "anticipatory self-defence" policy used by major powers.
- A case study on Iraq, investigating the consequences of international sanctions and military occupation.
- The role of the United Nations in international peace and security.
Excerpt from the Book
3. Iraq as an example
America’s attack on Iraq was the execution of the so called “anticipatory self defence” policy. However, one should not forget the fact that Iraq is of great significance to the US's economic and strategic importance in the Middle East. I will analyse some arguments that were put forward to support the view that Iraq is a failed state, while questioning the logic behind them.
Due to the fact that Iraq leadership was incompetence in starting two disastrous wars, the effect of international sanctions, her inability to provide essential services like security, hospitals, schools, employment, infrastructure to her citizens, the total breakdown of law and order in the country, galloping corruption, her air space was controlled by hostile aircrafts (from the US and UK) and her inability to put the Kurdish north under control, Iraq according to them is an example of a failed state.
I will not want to go to the history of Iraq, but if we consider the sanctions on Iraq by the United Nations, and the oil for food program, it baffles me that the international community will call Iraq a failed state when they help her to fail. How can a state be functional when her sovereignty has been ceased? How can Iraq provide security and basic needs to her citizens when her economy was destroyed both by the sanctions and destruction caused by the activities in the no fly zones by western powers? How can we talk about security in Iraq when the aftermath of the overthrow of Sadam Hussein is instability perpetrated by groups opposing the US presence which are baptised as terrorists by the Americans but see themselves as freedom fighters, fighting for the total liberation of their country from the US occupation.
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: This chapter contextualizes the post-9/11 focus on failed states by reviewing existing theories, including Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations," and framing the subsequent debate on state sovereignty.
A. Meaning and theories explaining failed states: The section examines the various definitions of state failure and critiques the "anticipatory self-defence" doctrine used by the US to justify military interventions.
2. Failed states and international security.: This chapter explores how the end of the Cold War and the loss of superpower support contributed to the vulnerability and subsequent failure of several developing states.
3. Iraq as an example: This section provides a critical analysis of the invasion of Iraq, arguing that the label of a "failed state" was used to mask underlying strategic and economic interests.
4. Conclusion: The author summarizes the findings, asserting that most interventions in weak states are driven by self-interest and calls for the United Nations to regain its role as the primary authority in international interventions.
5. Bibliography: A list of academic and secondary sources used to support the author’s arguments regarding failed states and geopolitical strategy.
Keywords
Failed States, International Relations, Iraq, Anticipatory Self-Defence, US Hegemony, Cold War, Sovereignty, Terrorism, Middle East, Geopolitics, Interventionism, United Nations, Third World, International Security.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the fundamental focus of this presentation?
The work examines the "failed states" debate from a critical perspective, arguing that the term is often used strategically by powerful nations to justify military interventions.
What are the primary themes discussed?
Key themes include the impact of the end of the Cold War, the concept of anticipatory self-defence, the role of Western powers in creating state instability, and the critique of international intervention policies.
What is the central research question?
The author seeks to question the logic behind labeling specific countries as "failed states" and investigates whether these labels are objective assessments or political tools for hegemony.
Which scientific methods are applied?
The text employs a qualitative, analytical approach, reviewing existing political science literature and applying it to current events, particularly the Iraq War, to construct a critical argument.
What does the main body of the work cover?
The main body covers the theoretical foundations of state failure, the historical shift in international security after the Cold War, and a detailed case study of the situation in Iraq.
How can this work be characterized through keywords?
The work is characterized by terms such as failed states, interventionism, international security, US hegemony, and geopolitical strategy.
How does the author view the role of the United Nations?
The author argues that the UN should be the sole legitimate body authorized to intervene in state conflicts, despite acknowledging the organization's current weaknesses and lack of democratic structure.
Why does the author argue that Iraq cannot be objectively termed a "failed state"?
The author posits that the international community, through sanctions and military actions, contributed directly to the breakdown of Iraqi institutions, making the "failed state" label hypocritical.
- Arbeit zitieren
- Stephen Ekokobe Awung (Autor:in), 2005, The failed states debate. Iraq as an example, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/453325
