Intelligence_ From Secrets to Policy - Mark M. Lowenthal [183]
• Various social factors or crises that lead to displacement of the population
• Largely independent security apparatus and suspensions of basic rights
Different failed states will display different attributes in varying degrees. (Every year Foreign Policy magazine publishes its list of failed states worldwide and the degree to which different factors led to the ranking.) The policy issue raised by failed states is threefold. First, there is concern for the effects of the failure on the state’s population. Second, the effects of the failure tend to spill over its borders. Among the most frequent manifestations of this is the shifting of populations from failed states to neighboring states that are deemed more secure. This then puts additional demographic pressure on the neighboring state to house and feed the refugees. Third, the failed state becomes a magnet for groups that would prefer to operate in an area where there is little law enforcement—terrorists, criminals, narcotics dealers, human traffickers, and even WMD proliferators. Thus, failed states become the loci for many of the transnational issues. Afghanistan is an excellent example, serving as a host for al Qaeda after Osama bin Laden left Sudan (another failed state) and still the site of combat between the Taliban and NATO.
The first intelligence challenge posed by failed states is to identify which ones have either reached this nadir or appear to be approaching it. This is a difficult task as there is no agreed index as to what constitutes a failed state and there will be some states that display some of the attributes but still function, albeit at a very minimal level. This indication and warning function is made more difficult by the fact that policy makers often do not know what to do about a failed state. Indeed, in most cases the options are fairly limited. Unilateral intervention is rarely attractive (such as the U.S. intervention in Somalia in late 1992) and crafting a coherent multilateral approach is often very difficult as the interests of states will differ when viewing the failed state. The crisis in Darfur is an excellent example. Most people would agree that Sudan is a failed state. (Foreign Policy assessed it to be the most failed state in its 2007 list.) Few would disagree that the actions of the Sudanese military and associated militias are horrific. However, meaningful international action is stymied by the fact that China, which has a veto on the United Nations (UN) Security Council, does not want to upset the Sudanese government and put at risk the oil that China imports from Sudan.
It is also important to correlate the failed state with our national security interests. For example, on the Foreign Policy, list of top twenty failed states in 2007, nine are in sub-Saharan Africa, where it would be difficult to define major U.S. national security interests beyond the fact that these are failed states. Two others, Iraq and Afghanistan, are of concern as U.S. and allied troops are engaged in these countries. Pakistan and North Korea are not only important to U.S. national security interests but also have nuclear weapons. Finally, Nigeria and Sudan have significant oil deposits. In short, all failed states are of concern if they become magnets for the various transnational issues, especially terrorism and its supporting issues, but some failed states are more problematic because of specific attributes.
The second intelligence challenge posed by failed states is then identifying which transnational issues may be growing or flourishing. Collection can be difficult because the groups in question tend to be covert and because the actual conditions in the state can be chaotic and dangerous. These states and the issues in which the United States has the most interest are also less likely to be susceptible to technical collection systems.
LEADERSHIP. A key component when assessing nation states is the issue of leadership. Despite the intellectual objections of those who argue