From our newest contributor, Shannon Hiller:
The third annual Failed State Index, produced jointly by a The Fund for Peace and Foreign Policy magazine, came out with mostly depressing news. The index ranks 177 states on 12 indicators, meant to asses their “vulnerability to violent internal conflict and societal deterioration.” The 2007 report includes data gathered from May to December 2006. Compared to last year, Central Asia managed a mixed yet predictable showing. [Click here for the current table with all of the 12 indicators, here for last year's table and here for the non-truncated FP version listing all 60 failed states]
A primary conclusion for the region: the neighborhood matters a lot. From this principle, its easy to understand why Tajikistan made the worst progress, climbing three spots to #39. FP notes its proximity to Afghanistan with some handy arrows symbolizing the spreading heroin, AIDS, and discord. Reinforcing this assumption, Bosnia, Serbia, and Moldova seem to be moving rapidly to the bottom or entirely off the chart, reluctantly surrounded by an expanding European Union. There is some metaphor about gentrification to be had here, involving drugs, but I think it could drag on too long for comfort.
Though similar arrows are directed at Uzbekistan, one can only assume it escaped a similar rise, keeping last years ranking of #22, due to the much more high profile instability of Africa and the lack of a “repeat Andijan” to hold international attention. Still, it remains the least stable in the region and Karimov’s long tenure merited a comparison with such legendary dictators as Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe:
“But the problem is not restricted to sub-Saharan Africa. Uzbekistan’s President Islam Karimov, who has continued a brutal crackdown on dissent since the massacre of hundreds of unarmed protesters in May 2005, has been in power since 1991.”
Turkmenistan rose only two spots under the last year of Turkmanbashi’s reign, landing at #43. The suspicious death of RFE/RL reporter Ogulsapar Muradova, while in prison serving an equally suspicious sentence from a closed trial, is only the most high profile example of how deserving the country is of its near perfect (a.k.a. bad) score in the “Human Rights” column. Without Turkmenbashi, there still isn’t really a question of whether similar arrests will continue. This past year also saw the arrest of a prominent environmentalist. Though he was subsequently released, you’ve got to be scraping the bottom of the dissident barrel if you’re going after the greens.
Kyrgyzstan, on the other hand, allegedly stepped the furthest from the abyss, dropping a full 13 spots to #41. Encouragingly, the drop was due to lower rankings nearly across the board, albeit extremely marginal. The ability of Kyrgyz to flee the country seems to be the main factor keeping it ranked above Turkmenistan. The survey’s time frame obviously missed the bulk of orchestrated protests between factions over the constitution, otherwise its difficult to square the low score on “Factional Elites” with recent events.
Other points of interest for the region include the disappearance of Russia and China from the list, signaling that at least part of the neighborhood may be improving a little. FP admits that this may be due to an increase in the number of countries analyzed, but also points to general economic growth. The lack of another Beslan-type incident in Russia likewise outweighed the decrease in democracy; the index measures susceptibility to state collapse, not really the more traditional measures of a government. Likewise, Kazakhstan doesn’t even register, probably as a result of its relative economic status, lack of such a highly volatile boarder, and maybe a hesitation to rub in the success of the Borat movie. The soap opera of Aliyev might help squeeze them into the chart next year though and the rest of Central Asia doesn’t appear to be leaving the top tiers any time soon.
Table source: Foreign Policy Magazine
9 Comments
June 20, 2007 at 10:01 am
[...] Pon looks at how Central Asian states fared in the recently released Failed State Index. Share [...]
June 21, 2007 at 7:42 am
[...] more in depth look at the failed states index, and what it might mean about Central [...]
June 21, 2007 at 7:43 am
[...] more in depth look at the failed states index, and what it might mean about Central [...]
June 24, 2007 at 5:43 pm
Washington ProFile said on 20 June about the 60 states only from the 177-position index, and because Russia was the 62nd, many Russian media, included RIA Novosti, stated immedately that Russia is out of the failed states list…
WPF also made a mistake saying Tajikistan was the 29th, while it was the 39th avtually, and many journalists repeat the mistake.
June 24, 2007 at 11:25 pm
Thanks for the tip, Naryn. Here’s a Russian reprint of the mistake. Talking of failed states, Publius Pundit comments on Russia’s faltering society. Apparently, Russia ranks top 3 in the world for both teenage suicide and divorce rates.
PP’s answer to this “disturbing reality” — the power of propaganda.
July 4, 2007 at 2:47 pm
[...] Foreign Policy magazine has also attracted bloggers’ attention. Asel on neweurasia and Shannon on nonpon published posts on the ranking results, according to which Kyrgyzstan drops thirteen spots to #41. [...]
July 5, 2007 at 3:20 pm
[...] wird, hat auch die Aufmerksamkeit der Blogger erregt. Asel auf neweurasia und Shannon auf nonpon haben beide Posts über die Rangliste geschrieben, auf der Kirgistan dreizehn Plätze auf Nr. 41 [...]
July 31, 2007 at 10:24 pm
[...] immerhin den 5. Platz. Auf Platz 41 liegt das Land auf dem „Index der gescheiterten Staaten“. Shannon auf nonpon dazu: „Die Kirgisen haben die Möglichkeit ihrem Land zu entfliehen. Deshalb steht [...]
January 18, 2008 at 5:47 am
I stumbled through your blog last week and came back again today due to its richness and interesting content. Keep up the good work. Hope to read more from you!