Is A Weak or “Hollow” State Worse than a Failed State?
If Mexico fails, really fails on the order of Lebanon in the 1980’s or Somalia since the 1990’s, Galrahn is correct that the U.S. military would, in the last analysis, have a free hand to do things in Mexico that could not be remotely contemplated today. However the second and third order effects of a Failed State Mexico are calamitous enough that I’d prefer to skip enjoying that kind of “free hand”. Unless Mexicans have something in their DNA that makes them different from Iraqis, Afghans, Cambodians or Kosovar Albanians, extreme levels of violence in one area will cause them to move to areas of relative safety in another place. Internal displacement will precede external displacement. Elite flight will precede the flight of the masses.
That brings us to the general question of, is a Failed State better or worse than a Weak State whose tattered shreds of international legitimacy prevent robust foreign intervention? I am going to “punt” by inclining toward judging on a case-by-case basis. “Failed State Botswana” is not likely to impact the world very much nor is “Functional State Congo” going to look very good next to anything except Congo as the Failed State that it is. Now “Failed State China” or “Failed State Russia”, that has consequences that are the stuff of nightmares.
What do you say? Which is worse: Weak State or Failed State?
ADDENDUM:
SWJ Blog links to a Washington Post series on the Cartel War
Page 2 of 2 | Previous page
historyguy99:
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:07 am
Hi Mark,
I want to commend both you and Galrahn for doing more than punting, but carring the ball of this topic forward for a first down. The more we discuss this issue the better prepared we are for whatever happens. Had the blogs been this active prior to 9/11 who knows what attention could have been drawn to the bad actors on the horizon.
historyguy99:
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:43 am
This just posted by Michael Yon as the winds of Hurricane Mexico reach Afghanistan.
fabius.maximus.cunctator:
April 2nd, 2009 at 12:39 pm
The idea that a failed neighbour state would be better than a weak one because the US govt has its hands free for punitive expeditions seems frankly puerile. Going in to "take out the bad guys" indeed. And then what ? Perhaps this:
"Failed states are problems that can be handled, even in an ugly way, by conventional military forces." Is that supposed to imply a full scale military occupation and some “nation building”, again ?
Iraq has around 40 million inhabitants. Pacifying them (at least imperfectly and for the time being) was not that easy. 2,5 Iraqs on yr southern border wd constitute an interesting stimulus package for the security community. On the other hand the hypothesis that a weak state may be more useful to criminal networks than complete chaos seems plausible. However, I am not sure the leaders of criminal organisations would view it the same way. I know far too little about their backgrounds, training (if any) and thus their mentality and possible strategy to hazard even a tentative guess. Methodical gripe: Comparing around 110 million Mexicans to 16,5 million Dutch and 1.150 million Indians ?
zen:
April 2nd, 2009 at 1:21 pm
hi HG99,
.
Much appreciated – thank you!
.
Hi FMC,
.
Mexico is a MIC ( middle income country), the table is drawn from the CIA Fact book for size of GDP, not per capita GDP. Whether it is India or the Netherlands or Mexico, countries in this band have adequate resources for a functioning state.
Galrahn:
April 2nd, 2009 at 1:39 pm
Is that supposed to imply a full scale military occupation and some “nation building”, again ?Interestingly, I would say the answer is yes, generally it means exactly that. The world does this all the time with the United Nations, and in many cases this is done with African Union forces.For the most part though, I would argue the world usually quarters off failed states and does nothing about them, usually waiting for governments to emerge as weak states before taking action.
fabius.maximus.cunctator:
April 2nd, 2009 at 1:57 pm
Hi Zen
Maybe my English isn`t good enough. Calling it a gripe was intended to convey that it was just meant as a hint, not a main point.
Anyhow, I am by no means a "numbers guy" but just looking at GDP size without taking the size / population of the country into account does not make sense to me. No snark intended (for once) but I am not surprised you got this MIC from the CIA factbook. Just the sort of thing they wd do. Again, maybe it is my fault, but I see little use in the classification.
BTW, you are absolutely right in pointing out (previous posts) that there is not much weighing of the pros and cons in re Mexico in the media or the blogosphere. I hope I will get some here.
Lexington Green:
April 2nd, 2009 at 3:28 pm
"… liberalize it’s economy further to stimulate entrepreneurship."
.
Mexicans in Chicago are entrepreneurial, hardworking and had the guts to come all the way up here and face the weather and a frequently difficult and hostile environment.
.
If their own government got the Hell out of their way, and provided the basis minima needed to facilitate growth (a recorder of deeds office, roads, courts that enforced contracts, basic public safety), they would transform the place in a generation.
.
A weak Mexican state is better for us. We can work with it, have it take the lead and take the blame and do the shooting. A failed state in Mexico on the level of Somalia or Lebanon would be a catastrophe for the USA. Half the population would head north in the automobiles, a gigantic, Spanish speaking volkerwanderung. It would be ugly.
fester:
April 2nd, 2009 at 6:26 pm
Tied up until Saturday, so a longer response then, but i think a weak state is slightly different than a hollow state and both are significantly different than a failed state and I think a weak state is much better than a failed state — the institutional framework is still there to be strengthened.