Who Failed The World's "Failed States"?

If that's the question, Canadians will favor intervening. While we think of ourselves as a nation of peacekeepers, we will consider war if it seems the only way to end suffering. Canadians are spurred to action by mass rape, by child soldiers, mass killings, genocidal intentions, disruption of livelihoods, cycles of misery, and unforgivable poverty. Thus many NGOs, academics and government officials have adopted the language and framework of "failed states," working to morph political attention into concern for the welfare of people suffering brutal conflicts. But the actions of Canada and its allies in "failed states" are unlikely to advance the desires of activists to build a peaceful, disarmed, non-militarized, equitably developed world. When we ask and attempt to answer "how do we help stabilize these failed states?" we're asking the wrong questions. DE-BUNKING "FAILED STATES" In this global "war on terror," Northern governments have designated a number of countries as "fragile, failing, or failed." Officially, these are states unable or unwilling to control the use of force and deliver basic services to their citizens, and lacking legitimacy to govern effectively. In practice, most states that suffer violent conflict are considered "failed or failing," and "state failure" has become the new lingo for violent conflict seriously disrupting the state. Countries considered "failed, fragile, or failing" range from Somalia (which in many ways is a stateless territory), to Iraq (whose government was brought down by the US forces that now occupy the country over the armed opposition of numerous Iraqis), to Sudan (which currently hosts several armed conflicts aimed at undermining or strengthening the current government), to Colombia (whose long-running civil war has been fueled by, among other things, the government's attempts to regain control), to Venezuela (whose government the United States considers illegitimate). Canada is devoting significant attention and resources to these "fragile states," contending that they pose a dual threat to western nationals and to their own populations. CIDA, DFAIT and the Department of National Defence are pursuing a strategy that encompasses defence, development, and diplomatic resources, stresses stabilization through military force, and sees "state-building" as the goal of intervention in failed states. Geopolitical factors have influenced this course. Shifting alliances between developed countries since the collapse of Cold War alliances have affected priorities for aid, diplomatic, and military resources. The attacks of September 11, 2001, for which Afghanistan was used, shifted security preoccupations away from the threats emanating from powerful states toward those emanating from weak states. This included a facile assumption that "fragile states" are breeding grounds for terrorist activity threatening North America -- an assumption that is demonstrably false. Much more at: From Peace Magazine Apr-Jun 2007, p.6. Author=Erin Simpson; Title=Who Failed the World's "Failed States"?; URL=http://www.peacemagazine.org/archive/v23n2p06.htm Copyright peace magazine. peacejournalism.com, http://peacejournalism.com:80/ReadArticle.asp?ArticleID=18767

Note: http://www.peacemagazin... http://peacejournalism....