|
First, it is clear the writers are refusing to acknowledge HOW "States" operate (By "State" I mean National Governments like the US Federal Government NOT the individual states that makes up the US). Generally you have an Economic/Political center (In the US it is Washington DC AND New York City). These Centers then spread out and control an much larger area. Sometime this is done politically, other times just economically, but it is the later that is important NOT the former. Thus the DC-NYC center reaches out into the hinterlands and connects to those two great highways of North American, the Great Lakes and the Mississippi River System. Thus Canada, while an independent State, in part of the Economic Nation centered on DC-NYC.
Rivers, lakes, oceans provide the cheapest ways to move goods around and thus have always been the major economic highways of the World. The Roman Empire was centered on the Mediterranean Sea for the simple reason it was the best highway of the time period. When Carthage was lost to the Vandals in 450 AD, that split the Mediterranean into two, and within decades you saw the complete collapse of the Roman Empire in the West. The Eastern Roman Empire Survived for almost another 1000 years, till it lost control of its highway to the Italians during the Crusades and with that lost, its Capital fell to the Fourth Crusades in 1204 and then to the Turks in 1453 (The Greeks took it back about 1280, but it was never what it had been before the Crusades).
In the Western Empire during the period before 450, control over Northern Europe varied over time. Technically the borders never really changed from about the birth of Christ till 450 AD (The biggest change was in 410, then the Romans abandoned Britain) but how much control Rome had over the are varied over the Centuries. When Rome was at is height, most of what is now Germany was under the Economic Control of Rome, but when Rome was weak, it lost control even of areas In Northern Gaul. Why? To control these areas require these areas to get more from Rome then it was giving to Rome. When Rome was strong that was easy to do, when it was weak, these were the first area where economic saving occurred (i.e. tax revenues fell, cut the number of troops in these areas, while keeping the same number of legions, leading to huge savings in Revenue, an example of this is at the Time of Caesar a Roman Legion consisted of 10 Cohorts, 8 of 600 men, 2 of 1000 men plus Auxiliaries, mostly archers, total about 10,000 men, by the 300 AD the number of legions had increased but the number of people in each legion had been cut by at least half, often more. Furthermore equipment changes also occurred, generally cited as a need to increase mobility, but the real reason was to cut cost, the Rectangle Shield of Caesar's day was replaced by a Round shield by 300 AD, the short Sword and pike replaced by the long sword and Pike, but this was to compensate for the dropping of mail armor, most popular during the time of Hannibal, by cheaper and less effective metal plates at the time of Augustus, to almost no armor, except helmets by 400 AD).
The same has been occurring since the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union. The US and its NATO allies have cut back on aide to Third world countries, not only in military assistance but more so in non-military assistance. Combined with the end of all Assistance from the Former Soviet Union, you see less and less money going to marginal areas of control. These marginal areas are seeing that it is more cost effective for them to act in their own best interest thus go on their own way, ignoring what is in the best interest of the world and the Economic centers. The Economic Centers can NOT justify in their own minds the subsidies these marginal areas have been getting since 1945 and cut such support off. With that cut off what ever control the Economic Centers had over the area ended with the end of that support. Such like the end of Roman Support to the German Tribes ended Roman economic Control over the Germans (And parts of Northern Gaul). Yes most Roman Support was in the form of Troops, but those Troops were paid and that pay helped the local economy. Furthermore the Roman troops, after Augustus, settled in the Northern Lands, and thus added to the local economy (and became part of it). I will ignore the issue of Slavery, which was the main export of Germany into the Roman Empire between 100 BC and 220 AD (When the Roman Empire almost Collapsed and was saved by series of Roman Generals out of what is now the Balkans, the Empire they formed was a lot weaker then the Empire of Augustus and as such had limited economic control over Germany and over time less and less control over Gaul and Britain).
Lets look at the Economic Centers at the present time. You have NYC-DC, the "City" of London (Not London itself but its economic center inside the old "City of London" and thus called the "City of London" in many economic papers), Frankfort and Paris (The heart of the Euro), Tokyo, Beijing/Shanghai, Calcutta/Delhi, Moscow/St.Petersburg. You do have other lesser centers, Rome, Madrid (most Capitals of the world for example), Mexico City, etc. Most of these Economic Centers are centered on a coast, lake or a river (or other economic Highway). As long a the Cold War was going on, these minor Economic centers were "fought" over by the Soviet Union and the US in the form of Economic aide. This aide permitted these economic Centers to expand into the hinterlands at almost no cost to themselves. With the withdraw of those funds, the control of these economic centers over these hinterlands have become more costly (And do to other economic pressure, less and less money is being spent to hold onto them).
Thus we are seeing a replay of the later Roman Empire, as the economic centers withdraw economic support to their hinterlands and as a result those hinterlands do what is it their own economic best interests. You see this in Columbia (a marginal area of control even during the Cold War), where FARC is holding onto huge areas in the Jungle, an area the Columbia Government in Bogota has never really had any real control over (Columbia's borders are well defined, but the people who control those borders areas with Brazil is more often the not the people in the area NOT people with a concern as to what is the plans of Bogota or Brasilia. This is true of all of the Amazon river area of Peru and Bolivia (and the areas in Brazil next to those areas).
Afghanistan can not be called a "Failed state" for it was never a State. Afghanistan has always been a geographical expression of an area that never fell into the Indus River Economic Control area, the Ganges Economic Control Area, Tibet or the Control area of what is often called the Former Soviet States of Central Asia (FSSCA). Furthermore FSSCA came under the control of Moscow do to the willingness of Moscow to use its resources (The control of Russia and its main rivers, The Volga, the Northern Dvina, the Don, and the Volkhov- Lake Ladoga -Neva River System) and the Dienper River that flows into the Ukraine. One of the side affects of the end of the Cold War was Russia stopped supporting areas on its edges, concentrating on its centers.
If you notice, The FSSCA countries really have no economic centers themselves, but are drawn in three directions, all at the same time. To the Indus Vally, to Iran and the Persian Gulf, and to Russia and Moscow. Thus the FSSCA were the last parts of Central Asia to become part of Russia, in the late 1800s (Siberia, on the other hand was part of Russia by the 1500s and the collapse of the Successors of the Mongol Empire). Russia went east using portages (and then the Trans-Siberian in the late 1800s) starting in the 1500s only taking the FSSCA areas in the late 1800s.
With the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the hostility the US has to Iran AND the decision to support India (Which cut out support for Pakistan and the Indus Valley) the Central Asia Republics were on their own. Drawn three ways, but no one way in particular. Thus the states as they exist have no control over where their countries are going. People follow trade routes and at present such trade is going in three different directions. None of these states have "failed" all of them are drifting to see which of the three ways it is pulled will get strong first, and then follow joins that economic center.
Africa is similar. One of the problems with Africa is the borders, South of the Sahara, were drawn by Otto von Bismark in 1885 to cause wars not to prevent them. Bismark did not want any African territories, but took a couple of pieces to keep his own imperialist happy AND to give him a say on the division of Africa. Bismark, saying he wanted to minimize conflicts over Africa, called in the European Nations to discuss the division of African in a Conference in 1885. Bismark acted as a neutral arbitrator to the countries with serious imperial aims in Africa (This has been called like the Roosters leaving the Fox divide up the Hen-house among the Roosters, the Fox has plans for the Hens, but not the same plan as the Roosters). Anyway Bismark managed to set up the division of Africa in such a way as to guarantee wars. Bismark did this so that the European powers would be so mad at each other about some useless place in Africa they never combine to attack Germany. Thus Bismark did several things guarantee to cause conflict. First his first choice of a Border was always a river, on paper this sounds great Rivers a great line, but rivers CONNECT people, they are things that UNITE people, river do NOT divide people. Thus by using River, Bismark guarantee unstable situations. Now, North of the Sahara, Bismark could NOT use this technique to much, thus Egypt and Sudan are centered on the Nile River which flows through both Countries. Further south Bismark started to use the Nile as a divider, and that is one of the causes behind the Rwanda debacle of the 1990s (Its border is the Nile, you thus effectually divided up a river united population and combined part of that population with a herding population outside the Nile Valley and it then blew up in the 1990s).
The Congo is another river, divided between the French and Belgium during much of its length, but its month has an element of Portuguese territory. To the East of the Congo you have British Control areas.
The Zambezi River divided German East Africa from Portuguese East Africa (Bismark always planned to give German East Africa to the British for something, the British were bound to want it since Britain already control Zanzibar, the island nation off the coast of Tanzania (Formerly Tanganyika) the present name for German East Africa.
Notice the above area is also drawn in three different direction, first to Egypt and the Sudan via the Nile. Second Zanzibar off the East Coast of Africa via the Zambezi River. Third to Johannesburg in South Africa and fourth to Lagos in Nigeria.
My point is most of the "Failed States" mentioned in the article reflect the above areas, areas on the edges economic centers (and often at the edges of several economic centers). As such most of the people in those areas have more then one option of where and to who they can sell their goods. Most are waiting for one of the economic Centers to expand back into their area and get paid to be a member of that economic center's area of control.
Now, the true "failed states" such as Somalia and Iraq have other problems. Iraq's problem is it is the economic center of its area. The US Destroyed it during the Gulf War under Bush Senior but being an economic center it would and could not die. Iran, another economic center in that part of the World benefited to a certain degree, but sees itself also opposed by the US (But that is another story). Iraq needs to work out its internal differences and become what it has been for centuries, an economic center that is often divided between two draws. First is Persia, which it has strong economic ties (Many of the Rivers that flow into Iraq flows FROM Iran). Second is the Mediterranean Sea (The mountains that the twin rivers of Iraq headwaters are, divide Iraq from the Mediterranean Sea). These pulls affect Iraq when it is weak (as it is at the present time) but generally it is strong and as such an independent economic power (Through it has been united with the Mediterranean during the time of Alexander the Great, Roman times, Ottoman Empire times etc, but it has also been united with Persia during pre Alexander the Great times, Post Arab Conquest times, Mongol Conquest times, and off and on with Turkey during Ottoman Empire times).
As to Somalia, while it is drawn to Aden in Arabia, to Zanzibar off Tanzania, to Egypt but also to Ethiopia, these are all weak draws at best. In many ways it is its own economic center, but that center is in Djibouti (formerly French Somaliland). The French managed to keep Djibouti out of a united Somali in 1958 (Vote rigging was one of the many ways, including expelling people most likely to vote to join Somali) but this had the effect of Somali having no decent port and thus no easy access, except for small craft, to the highway off its shores (The Red Sea and the Indian Ocean). Worse, one section of traditional Somali is in Eastern Ethiopia with a small section in Kenya. Not only does note of the above economic centers want to spend the money to gain access to the rest of Somali, neither does the European economic centers, and as such Somali festers. Please note unlike most failed states Somali has easy access to transportation via the sea (But the main port in the area Djibouti is NOT available to most of Somali). Thus Somali has no center, but traditionally always had one. It is a failed state for its economic center has no design to expand its economic control over Somali given that the Economic Center is getting all of the income it can from that area at the present time. Someone has to go into Somali and form a state that includes most of its clans. No one wants to do that at the present time so Somali's problems fester, just like Iraq's problems festers.
Just pointing out that the Failed states of Iraq and Somali have almost nothing in common with the "failed states" of Russia, FSSCA, South America etc. Iraq and Somali is more the destruction of an Economic center due to outside influences NOT border areas being drawn three different directions.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
