Failed State Index 2009 and Nigeria - Understanding Why

8/8/2019 Failed State Index 2009 and Nigeria - Understanding Why

1/35

Nigeria and the FailedStates Index 2009

Why has Nigeria made the list for the last three (3) years?

This is a collection of information on the subject

January 07, 2010, Lagos, Nigeria


2/35

Failed State Index and Nigeria Some Facts Jan 7 2010

www.proshareng.com 2

Why Publish?

The events of the last two weeks has brought about an uncommonawareness, in ordinary Nigerians, of the consequence of our individual andcollective actions or/and inactions.

Not so many where aware of the inclusion of Nigerias name on the FailedState Index for the past three years 2007 to 2009.

For some, we only realized we had lost our innocence some few days backedwhen our Countrys name and nationals were included in the US flightrestriction schedule; along with countries we had traditionally thought wewere not in the same league with.

Understanding this league therefore becomes a task for Nigerians as partof its attempt at self-redemption, even as concerns continue to be raised onwhy and how we ended up in such a list from the promise of our early days.

This will be a testing time for us all leaders and citizens and ourintention is to contribute to the debate and better appreciation of the issuesinvolved by putting together this compilation of information to helpinterested readers understand what the indices of measuring ourdemocracy, nay economic development, in a global world has been definedas.

We recognise the developments as a unique opportunity for soul searchingand a call to action for every Nigerian to do the needful to help restore our

cultural dignity and sense of community based development.

We reject the tag of a failed state (ab initio) BUT feel inclined toacknowledge that the term FAILED STATE, as defined below, hascharacteristics we must admit needs our attention.

In one respect, we see the term failed state as representing (in a pluralform) what is sometimes called a democratic deficit i.e. a substantialgap between public policy and public opinion.

We must gain a new lease of life from this sobering reality, the eventualitythat has been long coming after so many years of sustained disconnect

between the state and the citizens.This is a generational challenge we must all rise up to and it calls for aparadigm shift in our approach to leadership, stewardship and followership.

The facts were not developed, researched or generated by us or any knownsources but have been obtained from publicly available sources as a startingpoint in our quest to understand, appreciate and determine what needs tobe done to save our nation. Nigeria deserves much better than to be treatedthis way and it would not be an easy process; but we must remain resolutein our determination to see the transformation through. The work begins.


3/35



Introduction:From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

NB: A counter-balance argument is offered by Noam Chomsky in his 2006 book titled Failed States: The Abuse of Power and the Assault on Democracy. See in the last section. The term failed state is often used by political commentators and journalists todescribe a state perceived as having failed at some of the basic conditions andresponsibilities of a sovereign government.

In order to make this definition more precise, the following attributes, proposed bythe Fund for Peace , are often used to characterize a failed state:

loss of physical control of its territory, or of the monopoly on the legitimateuse of physical force therein,erosion of legitimate authority to make collective decisions,an inability to provide reasonable public services, andan inability to interact with other states as a full member of the international

community .

Common characteristics of a failing state include a central government so weak orineffective that it has little practical control over much of its territory; non-provisionof public services; widespread corruption and criminality; refugees and involuntarymovement of populations; and sharp economic decline [1] .

The level of government control required to avoid being considered a failed statevaries considerably amongst authorities. [2] Furthermore, the declaration that a statehas "failed" is generally controversial and, when made authoritatively, may carrysignificant geopolitical consequences. [2]

Patricia M. Daboh wrote ( http://www.nigeriansinamerica.com/articles/2469/1/Is-Nigeria-Really-A-Failed-State/Page1.html ) said this on 10 Mar 2008 11:53:37 AM UTC

Can you look objectively at Nigeria and say it is not failing? I do not think so.Nigeria is failing the PEOPLE most of all who live there. Where is their hope whenlife is a daily struggle? Where is their opportunity for improvement if education is notimportant enough to make sure ALL its citizens are educated, where is the oil andgas resources being put back into its economy? My heart goes out to Nigeria, forthey are rich with resources, but poor with the know how to implement the countryand turn things around. Perhaps there are just not enough people (in power), whoare working for the "GOOD OF THE PEOPLE"--and not for themselves. My heart achesfor Nigeria, for they are so rich in intellect, ability, and potential, but they lackOPPORTUNITY. I would say, " Yes, Nigeria is a failed state in it's presentstate"; HOWEVER, it certainly does not have to, nor will it, REMAIN SO . Wedo an awful lot of talking on this website, giving our opinions, making assumptions,putting our 2 cents into it, but in order for change to occur, the words must FLOAToff of the paper into some action. Faith without works is Dead. Just like words,without action are dead too! God help Nigeria, for Nigeria is one of the wealthiestcountries, and should not be in the condition that it suffers from. God send us andothers to make a difference there. Amen!


4/35



Nigeria as a Failed State Why?

Contents

Part 1The Failed State 2009 Index

Part 2 1 Definition 2 Crisis States Research Centre 3 Failed States Index

o 3.1 Indicators of state vulnerability 3.1.1 Social indicators 3.1.2 Economic indicators 3.1.3 Political indicators

o 3.2 Failed States List 3.2.1 2009 3.2.2 2008 3.2.3 2007 3.2.4 2006 3.2.5 2005

4 See also 5 References 6 External links


5/35



Part 1

We are pleased to present the fifth annual Failed States Index. The FSI focuses on

the indicators of risk and is based on thousands of articles and reports that areprocessed by our CAST Software from electronically available sources.

We encourage others to utilize the Failed States Index to develop ideas forpromoting greater stability worldwide. We hope the Index will spur conversations,encourage debate, and most of all help guide strategies for sustainable security.

The Twelve Indicators Click on an indicator to see some examples of measures that may be included in theanalysis of that indicator. These are neither exclusive nor exhaustive. You can addmore measures, as appropriate.

Social IndicatorsI-1. Mounting Demographic PressuresI-2. Massive Movement of Refugees or Internally Displaced Persons creatingComplex Humanitarian EmergenciesI-3. Legacy of Vengeance-Seeking Group Grievance or Group ParanoiaI-4. Chronic and Sustained Human Flight

Economic IndicatorsI-5. Uneven Economic Development along Group LinesI-6. Sharp and/or Severe Economic Decline

Political IndicatorsI-7. Criminalization and/or Delegitimization of the State


6/35



I-8. Progressive Deterioration of Public ServicesI-9. Suspension or Arbitrary Application of the Rule of Law and Widespread Violationof Human RightsI-10. Security Apparatus Operates as a "State Within a State"I-11. Rise of Factionalized ElitesI-12. Intervention of Other States or External Political Actors

Commentary:It is a sobering time for the worlds most fragile countriesvirulent economic crisis,countless natural disasters, and government collapse. This year, we delve deeperthan ever into just what went wrongand who is to blame.

Yemen may not yet be front-page news, but its being watched intently these days incapitals worldwide. A perfect storm of state failure is now brewing there:disappearing oil and water reserves; a mob of migrants, some allegedly with al

Qaeda ties, flooding in from Somalia, the failed state next door; and a weakgovernment increasingly unable to keep things running. Many worry Yemen is thenext Afghanistan: a global problem wrapped in a failed state.

Its not just Yemen. The financial crisis was a near-death experience for insurgency-plagued Pakistan, which remains on imf life support. Cameroon has been rocked byeconomic contagion, which sparked riots, violence, and instability. Other countriesdependent on the import and export of commoditiesfrom Nigeria to EquatorialGuinea to Bangladeshhad a similarly rough go of it last year, suffering whateconomist Homi Kharas calls a whiplash effect as prices spiked sharply and thenplummeted. All indications are that 2009 will bring little to no reprieve.

Instead, the global recession is sparking fears that multiple states could slip all atonce into the ranks of the failing. Now more than ever, failed-state triage couldbecome a grim necessity for world leaders from the United Nations and World Bankto U.S. President Barack Obamas White House. All of which puts a fine point on anold and uncomfortable dilemma: Whom do you help when so many need it?

This is a sober question for sober times, and it is the backdrop for the fifth annualFailed States Indexa collaboration between The Fund for Peace, an independentresearch organization, and Foreign Policy. Using 12 indicators of state cohesion andperformance, compiled through a close examination of more than 30,000 publiclyavailable sources, we ranked 177 states in order from most to least at risk of failure.The 60 most vulnerable states are listed in the rankings.

Figuring out which faltering states to help depends in large part on what they need.After all, as Tolstoy might have put it, every failing state is failing in its own way.Georgia, for example, jumped 23 places in this years index due to a substantialspike in that elusive indicator, Invaded by Russia. Somalia and the DemocraticRepublic of the Congo are failing because their governments are chronically weak tononexistent; Zimbabwe and Burma are failing because their governments are strongenough to choke the life out of their societies. Iraq is failing, but its trajectory maybe toward greater success, while Haiti is failing as well, and it is hard to imaginesuccess around the corner.

It is also a harsh fact that a greater risk of failure is not always synonymous withgreater consequences of failure. For example, Zimbabwe (No. 2 on the index) istechnically failing more than Iraq (6), but the geopolitical implications of state failure


7/35



in Iraq would be far greater than in Zimbabwe. Its why we worry more aboutPakistan (10) than Guinea (9), and North Korea (17) more than the Ivory Coast(11).

Then take the paradoxical case of Iran, which jumped 11 spots in the rankings thisyear. With an already faulty economy, a vampire state mismanaging it further, and aglobal recession on top of all that, it is no surprise that Iran is faltering. But the stateis not failingindeed, it is succeeding quite wellin one rather important respect:the pursuit of nuclear weapons. And it is this success, more than Irans myriadfailings, that keeps it above the fold of other worrying news.

Answering the question of which failed states demand attention might well comedown to which are deemed to pose the biggest threat to the world at large. But eventhe widely presumed linkage between failing states and terrorism is less clear thanmany have come to assume since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks sounded thealarm about the consequences of governments not in control of their territory. Take

Somalia, once again the No. 1 failed state on this years index. A recent report byWest Points Combating Terrorism Center, drawing on captured al Qaeda documents,revealed that Osama bin Ladens outfit had an awful experience trying to operate outof Somalia, for all the same reasons that international peacekeepers found Somaliaunmanageable in the 1990s: terrible infrastructure, excessive violence andcriminality, and few basic services, among other factors. In short, Somalia was toofailed even for al Qaeda.

Which failed states are global security threats and which are simply tragedies fortheir own people? This is one question that will matter most this year of livingdangerously, and there are others we present in the following pages: Whichcountries might blow up next? Are there pockets of success within states of failure?And who (or what) is to blame when things go badcorrupt leaders, dysfunctionalsocieties, bad neighbors, a global recession, unfortunate history, or simplygeography itself?

The Failed States Index does not provide all the answers, nor does it claim to be ableto. But it is a starting point for a discussion about why states fail and what should bedone about thema discussion, sadly, that we might be having even morefrequently this year.

Country Rank Total

D e m o g r a p h

i c P r e s s u r e s

R e f u g e e s

a n

d I D P s

G r o u p G

r i e v a n c e

H u m a n

F l i g h

t

U n e v e n

E c o n o m

i c D e v e l o p m e n

t

E c o n o m

i c D e c

l i n e

D e l e g

i t i m i z a t

i o n o f

t h e

S t a t e

P u

b l i c S e r v i c e s

H u m a n

R i g h t s

S e c u r i

t y A p p a r a t u s

F a c

t i o n a

l i z e

d E l i t e s

E x t e r n a l I n

t e r v e n

t i o n

Somalia 1 114.7 9.8 9.9 9.7 8.5 7.7 9.5 10.0 9.9 9.9 10.0 10.0 9.8Zimbabwe 2 114.0 9.8 9.1 9.1 10.0 9.7 10.0 9.8 9.8 9.9 9.7 9.5 7.6Sudan 3 112.4 9.0 9.8 9.9 9.0 9.6 7.0 9.8 9.5 9.8 9.7 9.5 9.8

Chad 4 112.2 9.3 9.4 9.8 7.8 9.3 8.3 9.8 9.6 9.5 9.9 9.8 9.7Dem. Rep. of theCongo 5 108.7 9.7 9.6 8.9 8.1 9.3 8.3 8.6 9.2 9.0 9.7 8.7 9.6Iraq 6 108.6 8.7 8.9 9.7 9.1 8.6 7.6 9.0 8.4 9.3 9.7 9.6 10.0

Afghanistan 7 108.2 9.3 8.9 9.6 7.2 8.4 8.3 9.8 8.9 8.8 9.9 9.1 10.0


8/35



Central AfricanRepublic 8 105.4 8.9 9.0 8.6 5.7 9.1 8.4 9.3 9.3 8.9 9.6 9.5 9.1Guinea 9 104.6 8.5 7.1 8.2 8.6 8.9 8.7 9.8 9.2 9.0 9.4 9.2 8.0

Pakistan 10 104.1 8.3 8.6 9.6 8.3 8.8 6.4 9.1 7.5 8.9 9.5 9.6 9.5

Ivory Coast 11 102.5 8.6 7.8 9.0 8.4 8.1 8.3 9.1 8.0 8.5 8.5 8.5 9.7Haiti 12 101.8 9.3 5.8 7.3 8.6 8.2 8.9 9.2 9.5 8.5 8.4 8.3 9.8Burma 13 101.5 9.0 8.8 8.9 6.0 9.5 8.2 9.5 9.0 9.0 8.4 8.7 6.5

Kenya 14 101.4 9.0 9.0 8.6 8.3 8.8 7.5 9.0 8.0 8.2 8.0 8.8 8.2

Nigeria 15 99.8 8.5 5.3 9.7 8.3 9.5 6.6 9.2 9.0 8.6 9.4 9.6 6.1Ethiopia 16 98.9 9.4 8.0 8.2 7.7 8.8 8.3 7.9 8.2 8.5 7.5 8.8 7.6

North Korea 17 98.3 8.5 6.0 7.2 5.0 8.8 9.6 9.8 9.6 9.5 8.3 7.8 8.2

Bangladesh 18 98.1 8.9 6.9 9.4 8.4 9.0 8.0 8.5 8.0 7.6 8.0 8.9 6.5Yemen 19 98.1 8.8 7.9 7.7 7.4 8.9 8.2 8.3 8.5 7.7 8.4 9.0 7.3

East Timor 20 97.2 8.4 9.0 7.3 5.7 6.8 8.4 9.4 8.4 7.0 9.0 8.8 9.0Uganda 21 96.9 8.7 9.3 8.0 6.5 8.7 7.6 8.0 8.0 7.7 8.2 8.2 8.0

Sri Lanka 22 96.7 7.5 9.3 9.8 6.9 8.5 6.1 9.0 6.6 8.5 9.2 9.2 6.1

Niger 23 96.5 9.5 6.4 8.5 6.3 7.6 9.2 8.7 9.5 8.2 7.4 7.1 8.1

Burundi 24 95.7 9.2 8.1 7.5 6.5 8.4 8.0 7.5 9.0 7.6 7.3 7.7 8.9Nepal 25 95.4 8.3 6.8 8.7 6.0 9.3 8.5 8.0 7.4 8.7 8.1 8.4 7.2Cameroon 26 95.3 8.0 7.5 7.2 8.0 8.9 6.9 9.2 8.0 8.0 7.8 8.7 7.1

Guinea-Bissau 27 94.8 8.6 6.5 5.8 7.0 8.5 8.5 8.6 8.7 8.0 8.5 8.0 8.1

Malawi 28 93.8 9.3 6.3 5.9 8.3 8.5 9.1 8.3 8.8 7.5 5.6 7.8 8.4Lebanon 29 93.5 7.0 9.0 9.2 7.2 7.4 6.3 7.8 6.2 6.9 9.1 9.1 8.3

Republic of Congo 30 93.1 8.9 7.8 6.5 6.1 8.0 8.0 8.6 8.8 7.9 7.8 7.1 7.6Uzbekistan 31 92.8 7.9 5.3 7.4 7.0 8.7 7.2 9.0 6.6 9.2 9.0 9.0 6.5

Sierra Leone 32 92.1 8.9 6.9 6.6 8.5 8.4 8.6 7.4 8.7 7.0 6.1 7.7 7.3

Georgia 33 91.8 6.4 8.3 8.5 6.0 7.5 6.0 9.0 6.3 7.5 7.9 8.9 9.5Liberia 34 91.8 8.6 8.0 6.1 6.8 8.5 8.2 7.0 8.5 6.7 6.9 7.9 8.6

Burkina Faso 35 91.3 9.0 6.0 6.1 6.5 9.0 8.2 7.9 9.0 6.5 7.5 7.6 8.0

Eritrea 36 90.3 8.6 7.0 5.8 6.5 6.0 8.6 8.6 8.6 7.9 7.4 7.7 7.6

Tajikistan 37 90.3 8.2 6.4 6.9 6.5 7.3 7.5 8.9 7.6 8.6 7.5 8.4 6.5Iran 38 90.0 6.5 8.5 7.6 6.8 7.4 5.5 8.3 6.0 8.9 8.6 9.1 6.8Syria 39 89.8 6.1 9.2 8.2 6.8 8.0 6.8 8.8 5.7 8.6 7.8 7.8 6.0

Solomon Islands 40 89.6 8.0 5.0 7.5 5.0 8.0 8.3 8.3 8.4 7.0 7.2 8.0 8.9

Colombia 41 89.2 6.9 9.2 7.2 8.5 8.5 4.3 7.9 6.0 7.2 7.5 8.0 8.0

Kirgizstan 42 89.1 8.0 5.3 7.2 7.5 8.3 7.6 8.3 6.5 7.6 7.7 7.3 7.8Egypt 43 89.0 7.6 6.9 8.0 6.2 7.6 7.0 8.6 6.4 8.4 6.2 8.1 8.0

Laos 44 89.0 8.2 5.9 7.0 6.6 6.0 7.5 8.2 8.0 8.5 7.6 8.3 7.2

Rwanda 45 89.0 9.3 6.9 8.7 7.2 7.3 7.5 7.9 7.3 7.3 4.6 8.0 7.0

Mauritania 46 88.7 8.7 6.2 8.2 5.0 7.0 7.8 7.0 8.5 7.1 7.9 8.0 7.3

Equatorial Guinea 47 88.3 8.3 2.0 6.8 7.4 9.0 4.4 9.4 8.6 9.2 8.6 8.6 6.0Bhutan 48 87.3 6.5 7.5 7.9 6.8 8.7 7.5 7.4 7.2 8.4 5.5 7.7 6.2

Cambodia 49 87.3 7.9 5.2 7.0 8.0 7.2 7.5 8.5 7.9 7.4 6.5 7.5 6.7

Togo 50 87.2 7.9 6.0 5.8 6.9 7.5 8.2 7.5 8.3 7.6 7.4 7.3 6.8Bolivia 51 86.3 7.8 4.9 7.5 6.9 8.7 7.0 7.6 7.7 6.8 6.4 8.2 6.8

Comoros 52 86.3 7.4 3.7 5.5 6.0 6.3 7.8 8.7 8.7 7.0 7.5 7.9 9.8

Philippines 53 85.8 7.2 6.3 7.5 7.2 7.6 6.0 8.5 6.1 7.0 7.7 7.9 6.8

Moldova 54 85.1 6.6 4.2 7.1 8.0 7.0 6.8 8.1 6.7 7.0 8.0 8.0 7.6Angola 55 85.0 8.6 7.0 6.1 5.5 9.4 4.5 8.0 8.0 7.2 6.2 7.3 7.2Azerbaijan 56 84.6 6.4 8.2 7.9 5.7 7.4 6.1 8.2 5.5 7.0 7.3 7.9 7.0

China 57 84.6 9.0 6.8 7.9 6.1 9.2 4.5 8.5 7.2 8.9 6.0 7.2 3.3

Israel/West Bank 58 84.6 7.2 8.0 9.3 4.0 7.5 4.1 7.5 7.0 8.0 6.0 8.0 8.0

Turkmenistan 59 84.3 7.0 4.8 6.5 5.6 7.6 6.9 8.5 7.2 8.9 7.6 7.7 6.0

Zambia 60 84.2 9.0 7.1 5.3 7.0 7.1 8.5 7.8 8.4 5.6 5.2 5.7 7.5Indonesia 61 84.1 7.3 6.7 6.3 7.2 8.1 6.9 6.7 6.7 6.7 7.3 7.3 6.9

Papua New Guinea 62 84.1 7.5 4.0 7.3 7.6 8.9 6.8 7.7 8.1 6.5 6.7 7.1 5.9


9/35



Bosnia 63 83.3 5.5 7.2 8.2 5.8 7.3 5.5 8.2 5.6 5.4 7.4 8.7 8.5

Nicaragua 64 82.6 7.4 5.2 6.3 6.9 8.1 7.7 7.1 7.8 5.8 6.5 7.2 6.6

Swaziland 65 82.4 9.2 4.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 8.0 8.8 7.8 7.5 6.8 6.9 7.4Belarus 66 82.3 7.2 4.1 6.9 5.0 7.2 6.6 8.9 6.6 8.0 6.6 8.1 7.1

Lesotho 67 81.8 9.4 4.7 5.2 6.5 5.6 8.4 7.4 8.7 6.5 5.5 6.9 7.0Madagascar 68 81.6 8.9 5.0 5.6 5.0 7.6 7.4 6.6 8.8 5.9 5.9 7.1 7.8

Ecuador 69 81.2 6.5 6.3 6.3 7.3 8.0 6.4 7.0 6.8 6.0 6.8 7.8 6.0

Tanzania 70 81.1 8.0 7.1 6.6 6.0 6.9 7.5 6.7 8.0 5.8 5.4 6.3 6.8Russia 71 80.8 7.0 5.9 7.5 6.2 8.1 4.6 8.0 5.7 8.3 6.9 8.0 4.6

Mozambique 72 80.7 8.7 3.2 4.8 7.6 7.4 8.0 7.3 8.9 7.2 6.0 5.6 6.0

Algeria 73 80.6 6.7 6.7 7.7 6.2 7.3 4.6 7.7 6.7 7.6 7.0 6.7 5.7

Cuba 74 80.6 6.9 5.9 5.5 7.2 6.8 6.3 7.5 5.0 7.4 7.5 7.1 7.5

Djibouti 75 80.6 8.0 6.4 5.7 5.2 6.3 6.6 7.4 7.5 6.2 6.2 6.9 8.2Guatemala 76 80.6 7.0 5.8 6.7 6.7 8.2 6.6 7.1 6.6 7.0 7.1 6.3 5.5

Venezuela 77 79.5 6.8 5.0 7.0 6.9 8.0 5.3 7.2 5.9 7.3 6.9 7.7 5.5

Serbia 78 79.2 5.8 7.3 7.9 5.5 7.4 5.9 7.3 5.2 5.8 6.3 7.9 6.9Thailand 79 79.2 6.9 6.5 8.0 4.5 7.7 3.8 8.2 5.4 6.9 7.5 8.0 5.8

Gambia 80 79.0 7.2 5.7 4.4 6.4 7.0 7.4 7.8 7.1 6.9 6.0 6.2 6.9Fiji 81 78.8 6.1 4.3 7.3 6.5 7.7 6.3 8.6 5.0 6.1 6.7 8.2 6.0

Maldives 82 78.8 6.5 6.5 5.2 7.0 5.2 6.7 7.2 7.3 7.5 6.3 7.4 6.0

Mali 83 78.7 8.7 4.6 6.5 7.4 6.9 8.3 5.3 8.4 5.2 6.5 4.0 6.9Cape Verde 84 78.5 7.9 4.0 4.4 8.2 6.2 7.2 7.4 7.6 6.2 5.7 6.1 7.6

Turkey 85 78.2 6.8 6.6 7.7 5.0 8.0 5.3 6.5 5.3 6.0 7.0 7.8 6.2

Jordan 86 77.9 6.7 7.9 6.8 5.0 7.4 6.5 6.0 5.4 6.9 6.0 6.5 6.8India 87 77.8 8.3 4.9 7.3 6.7 8.9 5.0 5.5 7.0 6.0 7.1 6.0 5.1

Dominican Republic 88 77.7 6.7 5.3 6.0 8.5 8.0 5.6 5.8 6.7 6.7 5.8 6.8 5.8Saudi Arabia 89 77.5 6.5 6.0 8.0 3.4 7.0 2.7 8.4 4.3 8.9 8.0 7.8 6.5

El Salvador 90 77.2 7.6 5.7 6.2 6.9 7.8 6.3 7.0 6.6 6.9 6.4 4.5 5.3

Honduras 91 77.2 7.8 4.0 5.0 6.3 8.5 7.2 7.0 7.1 6.3 6.0 6.1 5.9Morocco 92 77.1 7.0 6.7 6.8 6.2 7.8 6.5 7.4 6.5 6.7 5.1 6.2 4.2

Peru 93 77.1 6.6 4.5 6.4 7.3 8.2 5.6 6.9 6.3 5.5 7.2 6.9 5.7Vietnam 94 76.9 6.8 5.3 5.5 6.0 6.5 6.7 7.3 6.3 7.2 6.2 7.1 6.0

Sao Tome 95 76.7 8.0 4.0 5.0 7.3 6.1 7.9 7.3 7.5 5.3 5.6 6.3 6.4

Namibia 96 75.6 7.7 5.5 5.8 7.7 9.1 6.1 5.0 7.1 6.0 5.8 3.6 6.2Benin 97 75.5 7.5 6.2 4.1 7.0 7.4 6.9 6.6 8.0 5.6 5.2 4.3 6.7

Mexico 98 75.4 7.0 4.3 5.9 7.0 8.2 6.1 6.8 6.0 5.5 7.0 5.0 6.6Gabon 99 74.4 7.2 5.7 3.0 6.0 7.8 5.5 7.3 6.8 6.3 5.9 7.2 5.7Macedonia 100 74.4 5.0 4.6 7.5 6.9 7.3 6.3 7.4 4.8 5.3 5.8 6.7 6.8

Armenia 101 74.3 5.9 7.2 6.0 6.7 6.5 5.3 7.1 5.4 6.1 5.3 6.9 5.9Senegal 102 74.2 7.4 6.0 6.3 5.6 7.5 6.5 6.0 7.3 6.0 5.9 4.0 5.7

Suriname 103 73.2 6.2 3.9 6.2 6.9 7.9 6.3 6.7 5.0 6.0 6.2 5.8 6.1Guyana 104 73.0 6.3 3.5 6.1 7.9 7.9 6.6 6.7 5.5 5.4 6.8 5.1 5.2Kazakhstan 105 72.5 6.0 3.9 5.5 4.0 6.4 6.4 7.7 5.3 6.8 6.5 7.6 6.4

Paraguay 106 72.0 6.4 1.3 6.5 6.0 7.9 5.9 7.9 6.0 6.9 5.3 7.5 4.4Micronesia 107 71.9 7.2 3.1 4.5 8.3 7.0 6.6 6.6 6.8 3.0 5.3 5.5 8.0

Samoa 108 71.4 6.5 3.0 5.2 8.2 6.8 5.8 6.6 5.0 4.7 6.0 5.5 8.1

Albania 109 70.0 6.4 2.6 5.4 7.2 5.9 6.5 7.3 5.8 5.8 5.5 5.9 5.7Ukraine 110 69.7 6.1 3.0 6.9 7.1 6.4 5.5 7.2 4.2 5.5 3.3 7.9 6.6

Belize 111 69.5 7.0 5.0 4.9 6.9 7.3 6.0 6.2 5.7 4.0 5.9 4.6 6.0Libya 112 69.4 5.9 4.2 5.8 4.0 7.1 5.5 7.1 4.2 8.1 5.4 7.1 5.0Brazil 113 69.1 6.4 3.9 6.4 5.0 8.9 4.1 6.4 6.0 5.6 6.9 5.1 4.4

Cyprus 114 68.9 5.0 4.5 7.5 5.2 7.8 4.0 5.4 3.6 3.8 5.2 7.9 9.0Malaysia 115 68.9 6.5 5.2 6.2 3.8 6.9 4.7 6.1 5.2 6.5 6.1 6.1 5.6

Botswana 116 68.8 9.2 6.7 4.3 6.0 7.2 5.6 5.8 6.4 5.0 4.0 2.8 5.8Jamaica 117 68.6 6.4 2.7 4.5 6.3 6.7 6.6 7.0 6.4 5.7 6.0 4.0 6.3


10/35



Brunei Darussalam 118 68.1 5.4 4.4 6.6 4.0 7.8 3.4 7.9 3.6 6.8 6.1 7.4 4.7

Grenada 119 67.9 5.9 2.9 4.5 7.8 6.9 5.9 6.3 4.1 4.7 5.5 5.8 7.6

Seychelles 120 67.7 6.3 4.4 5.0 4.7 6.8 4.8 7.1 4.6 5.9 5.6 6.0 6.5Tunisia 121 67.6 5.9 3.2 5.4 5.3 7.2 4.9 6.6 6.1 7.4 6.2 6.0 3.4

South Africa 122 67.4 8.4 7.4 5.3 4.3 8.5 4.6 5.5 5.7 4.5 4.3 5.9 3.0Trinidad 123 66.7 5.8 3.1 4.9 7.1 7.6 4.5 6.1 5.4 5.6 5.7 5.6 5.3

Ghana 124 66.2 7.0 5.1 5.4 8.1 6.6 5.5 5.3 7.2 4.7 2.4 4.2 4.7

Kuwait 125 63.4 5.7 4.2 5.1 4.3 6.1 3.5 6.5 3.5 6.9 5.1 7.2 5.3Antigua and Barbuda 126 62.8 4.7 3.6 4.3 7.8 6.5 4.8 5.8 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.4 5.9

Mongolia 127 61.9 5.8 1.2 4.3 2.3 5.8 5.9 6.7 5.5 6.6 5.0 5.7 7.1

Bulgaria 128 61.5 4.7 3.8 4.4 6.0 6.3 5.0 6.0 5.0 4.8 5.3 4.6 5.6

Romania 129 61.3 5.6 3.4 5.5 5.1 5.8 5.3 6.2 5.0 4.5 4.3 5.1 5.5

Bahamas 130 60.9 6.7 3.7 5.0 5.7 6.9 4.4 5.5 4.6 3.0 5.3 4.8 5.3Croatia 131 60.1 4.9 6.1 5.4 4.8 5.5 5.9 4.5 3.9 4.7 4.3 4.3 5.8

Panama 132 59.7 6.6 3.4 4.6 5.0 7.3 5.6 4.7 5.5 4.7 5.1 3.0 4.2

Bahrain 133 59.0 5.0 3.1 6.4 3.7 5.9 3.5 6.9 3.1 5.0 4.4 6.1 5.9Montenegro 134 58.0 5.1 4.1 6.4 2.5 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.0 5.5 4.7 6.0 5.8

Barbados 135 57.2 4.1 3.3 5.3 7.0 7.1 5.2 4.5 2.8 3.0 5.0 4.5 5.4Latvia 136 54.6 4.5 4.5 4.5 5.0 6.2 5.5 5.1 4.4 3.7 2.9 4.3 4.0

Costa Rica 137 52.5 5.7 4.5 4.1 4.7 6.7 5.0 4.1 4.0 3.5 2.2 3.2 4.8

Qatar 138 51.9 4.7 3.2 5.2 3.3 5.3 4.4 6.5 2.6 4.5 2.5 5.0 4.7United Arab Emirates 139 51.8 4.6 3.4 4.7 3.3 5.7 3.2 6.7 3.6 5.8 2.3 4.0 4.5

Estonia 140 51.2 4.7 4.4 4.9 4.0 5.4 4.4 4.7 3.5 3.5 2.5 5.5 3.7

Hungary 141 50.7 3.5 3.0 3.4 5.0 6.1 5.0 5.5 3.8 3.5 2.1 5.0 4.8Poland 142 49.6 4.9 3.0 3.2 6.1 4.9 4.8 4.4 3.9 4.0 2.3 3.7 4.4

Malta 143 48.8 3.9 6.0 4.0 4.3 4.6 3.9 4.3 3.5 3.6 4.0 1.7 5.0Slovakia 144 48.6 4.3 2.0 4.3 5.4 5.8 4.6 3.9 4.0 4.0 2.0 3.9 4.4

Lithuania 145 48.0 4.5 2.8 4.2 5.2 6.2 4.7 4.1 3.4 3.5 2.1 3.0 4.3

Oman 146 47.2 4.5 1.0 3.0 1.3 2.3 4.4 6.0 4.5 6.4 5.0 6.6 2.2Greece 147 46.1 4.5 2.7 4.4 4.7 4.8 4.0 4.5 3.9 3.6 3.5 2.0 3.5

Argentina 148 44.7 4.1 2.0 4.5 4.0 5.5 4.8 3.4 4.2 4.0 2.1 3.1 3.0Mauritius 149 44.7 3.9 1.0 3.5 2.4 5.9 4.3 5.3 4.4 3.9 3.6 3.3 3.2

Italy 150 43.9 3.8 3.7 4.5 3.0 4.7 4.4 4.3 2.8 2.6 4.0 3.7 2.4

Spain 151 43.3 3.9 2.6 6.2 1.7 5.2 4.0 1.3 2.6 2.7 5.2 5.7 2.2Czech Republic 152 42.6 3.5 2.7 3.6 4.5 4.3 4.1 3.6 3.8 3.5 2.0 3.3 3.7

South Korea 153 41.6 4.0 3.5 4.1 5.0 2.4 2.1 4.1 2.2 2.7 1.4 3.6 6.5Uruguay 154 41.2 4.7 1.0 2.0 5.8 5.2 4.1 2.8 3.6 2.5 3.3 2.5 3.7Chile 155 37.5 4.0 2.5 3.6 2.1 4.4 4.3 2.0 4.2 3.6 2.0 1.5 3.3

Slovenia 156 36.3 3.6 1.3 3.4 3.5 5.2 3.6 3.0 3.2 3.2 2.7 1.3 2.3Germany 157 36.2 3.5 3.9 4.9 2.8 4.9 3.2 2.3 1.9 2.5 2.1 1.8 2.4

France 158 35.3 3.9 3.0 5.8 2.0 5.5 3.3 1.8 1.5 2.9 1.2 2.0 2.4United States 159 34.0 3.1 3.7 3.3 1.0 5.3 2.9 3.0 2.3 4.0 1.4 2.5 1.5Singapore 160 33.8 3.0 1.1 3.1 2.7 3.0 3.2 4.0 1.5 4.3 1.0 4.1 2.8

United Kingdom 161 33.6 3.2 2.8 4.3 1.9 4.7 2.5 1.8 2.2 2.3 2.6 2.9 2.4Belgium 162 33.5 2.8 1.7 4.9 1.3 4.9 3.2 2.8 2.0 1.7 1.7 3.5 3.0

Portugal 163 32.7 3.9 1.4 2.6 2.3 3.9 4.2 1.6 3.8 3.7 1.1 1.2 3.0

Japan 164 31.2 4.2 1.1 3.8 2.0 2.5 3.1 2.0 1.2 3.4 2.0 2.0 3.9Iceland 165 29.0 1.0 0.9 1.0 3.2 2.5 6.7 2.2 1.4 2.1 1.0 2.0 5.0

Canada 166 27.7 3.3 2.4 3.0 2.1 4.7 2.0 1.7 1.2 2.1 1.1 2.4 1.7Austria 167 27.6 2.9 2.2 3.6 1.1 4.9 2.3 1.6 1.4 1.6 1.0 2.4 2.6Luxembourg 168 27.6 2.1 1.5 3.2 1.2 2.5 2.2 2.9 2.4 1.5 2.0 3.6 2.5

Netherlands 169 27.0 2.9 3.1 4.7 2.1 3.3 2.5 1.4 1.4 1.2 1.0 1.4 2.0Australia 170 25.9 3.1 2.2 3.4 1.1 4.4 2.8 1.4 1.4 2.5 1.0 1.5 1.1

New Zealand 171 23.3 1.3 1.2 3.2 2.3 4.2 3.6 1.1 1.4 1.7 1.0 1.2 1.1Denmark 172 23.2 3.0 1.6 3.0 2.0 2.2 2.7 1.3 1.5 1.5 1.3 1.0 2.1


11/35



Ireland 173 21.6 1.9 1.5 1.0 2.0 3.0 2.7 1.8 2.3 1.5 1.1 1.3 1.5

Switzerland 174 21.2 2.6 1.3 2.9 2.0 2.6 2.1 1.2 1.6 1.7 1.0 1.0 1.2

Sweden 175 20.6 2.8 2.6 1.3 2.0 2.3 1.6 1.0 1.2 1.6 1.1 1.3 1.8Finland 176 19.2 2.5 1.6 1.2 2.1 1.9 2.4 0.9 1.1 1.7 0.9 0.9 2.0

Norway 177 18.3 1.9 1.6 1.3 1.1 2.2 2.3 1.0 1.3 1.5 1.1 1.1 1.9

NIGERIA - Country Profile as at August 2009.

Basic InformationLocation: West Africa. Nigeria lies along the northern shore of the Gulf of Guinea, bordering Cameroon tothe southeast, Chad to the northeast, Niger to the north, and Benin to the westPopulation Size: 149.2 millionEthnic Composition: 29% Hausa-Fulani, 21% Yoruba, 18% Igbo, 10% Ijaw, 4% Kanuri, 4% Ibibio, 3%Tiv; 11% other. There are over 250 ethnic groups in the country.Religious Composition: 50% Muslim, 40% Christian, 10% indigenous beliefsLanguages: English (official), Hausa, Yoruba, Igbo, FulaniMajor Exports: Petroleum, petroleum products, cocoa, rubber

GDP per Capita (PPP): $2,300

Historical OverviewNigeria gained its independence from Great Britain on October 1, 1960, after over100 years under indirect British rule. The nation declared itself a republic threeyears later and Sir Abubakar Tafawa Balewa, a northerner, became the nations firstprime minister. Ethnic divisions within Nigerias highly diverse population wereworsened after a military coup detat was attempted by several junior Igbo officers inJanuary 1966, who claimed to be fighting corruption. After executing Prime MinisterBalewa and many other northern leaders, the coup leaders turned control over to amilitary regime headed by General Johnson Aguiyi-Ironsi, a fellow Igbo who headedthe army. In July 1966, Ironsi was deposed in a counter-coup led by northernofficers. Lieutenant-Colonel Yakuba Gowon, a Christian from a small northern tribe,was installed as President of Nigeria in an effort to ease growing ethnic tensionsbetween the north and south. The reestablishment of northern control of thegovernment resulted in widespread violence against Igbos, an ethnic group whichoriginated in Eastern Nigeria, many members of which migrated throughout thecountry. Continued abuses led to the regions secession in May 1967 and thedeclaration of the Republic of Biafra. The Nigerian government responded with aninvasion of Biafra that marked the beginning of a three-year civil war. The Nigerianforces were able to create a blockade, which resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians, including non-Igbo minorities, from starvation and disease.The war was concluded in January 1970 following the Biafran surrender. Despitesuccessfully leading the government to victory in the Nigerian Civil War, Gowon wasoverthrown in 1975 by General Murtala Ramat Mohammed after Gowon attempted to

postpone the scheduled 1976 elections. General Mohammed was assassinated thefollowing year, allowing his vice president, Olusegun Obasanjo, the general who ledthe final military assault on Biafra, to assume the presidency. In 1979, Nigeriaadopted a new constitution and elected Shehu Shagari as president, signaling thebeginning of Nigerias Second Republic. Though Shagaris government made effortsto be more inclusive than its predecessors, the government was widely perceived ascorrupt and ineffective. Following his reelection in 1983, also widely viewed asfraudulent, Shagari was overthrown in a military coup led by General MuhammaduBuhari.

In response to his severely repressive regime and efforts to eliminate corruption inthe military, General Buhari was himself overthrown in 1985 and replaced by General


12/35



Ibrahim Babangida, a member of the Supreme Military Council who was implicated inBuharis corruption probe. Babangida initiated a program of economic reform, calledthe Structural Adjustment Program, which called for deregulation and privatization inaccordance with recommendations from the International Monetary Fund. Plans fora transfer of power to an elected civilian government in 1992 were delayed afterBabangida nullified the results of the June 1993 presidential elections, which waswidely believed to have been won by a popular southerner. Babangida resignedthree months later under domestic and international pressure, establishing atransitional civilian government. However, the transitional government wasoverthrown in November 1993 by General Sani Abacha. Abachas rule wascharacterized by strict authoritarian control; upon assuming power be banned allpolitical activity, took control of the press, and imposed the most corrupt anddictatorial regime in the countrys history. Many political opponents were chargedwith treason, including Nobel Laureate Wole Soyinka, or executed. GeneralAbdulsalami Abubakar succeeded General Abacha, following his mysterious death in1998. Abubakar resigned after presidential elections in February 1999, in which

Olusegun Obasanjo received nearly two-thirds of the votes with accusations of irregularities.

In 2000, several predominantly Muslim northern statesone third of the countryadopted Shari'a Law, prompting renewed ethnic violence that resulted in hundreds of deaths. Obasanjo was reelected in 2003 amid widespread accusations of fraud.After Obasanjos bid for a third term was defeated by the Nigerian parliament,Umaru YarAdua assumed the presidency in an election that was also condemned byboth domestic and international observers. Throughout these regime changes, theNiger Delta, where the vast majority of the nations oil is extracted, was neglected,spawning an insurgency that has grown increasingly violent. Rebels have engaged innumerous skirmishes with government troops and have sabotaged oil pipelines since2007.

Social IndicatorsThe demographic pressures indicator worsened from 8.2 in the FSI 2008 to 8.5 inthe FSI 2009. Nigeria is Africas most populous country, with over 149 millionpeople. The country has an average population density of 164 people/km, and theregions along the Niger Delta are among the most densely populated in the Gulf of Guinea. There is also a significant youth bulge, with over 41% of the populationunder the age of 15. The indicator for refugees and displaced persons worsenedfrom 5.1 in the FSI 2008 to 5.3 in the FSI 2009. There are roughly 6,000 refugeesliving in camps in Nigeria, and many more migrants living in cities. The majority of these refugees and migrants come from Chad, Sudan, Liberia, and the Republic of the Congo. Increased fighting between Christians and Muslims in the north andnorthwest regions, as well as fighting along the Niger Delta, has also forced manyNigerians to flee their homes. The group grievance indicator worsened from 9.4 inthe FSI 2008 to 9.7 in the FSI 2009. Nigeria has been divided along religious andethnic lines throughout its history, often resulting in violence. A disputed election inNovember 2008 in the city of Jos sparked riots that resulted in the deaths of over400 people and forced 7,000 more to flee their homes, as rival Christian and Muslimgangs fought in the streets and burned down churches and mosques. While religiousviolence is rising in the North, the insurgency is growing in the Niger Delta.Residents of the Delta region, most of whom are members of the traditionallymarginalized Ijaw, Ibibio, Ogoni and other ethnic groups, feel that they are notreceiving their fair share of the billions of dollars in oil revenue that the regiongenerates. This has prompted local militia groups, the most prominent of which isthe Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta (MEND), to engage in


13/35



sabotage and kidnappings. MEND and other activists are demanding a greaterproportion of oil revenues and economic development benefits for the populationwho live in the region. The attacks have destabilized the region and reducedNigerias oil production significantly. Bunkeringor stealing of oilis widespread.The human flight indicator worsened slightly from 8.2 in the FSI 2008 to 8.3 in theFSI 2009. Nigeria suffers from a significant brain drain and educated Nigerianscontinue to seek better opportunities abroad.

Economic IndicatorsThe uneven development indicator worsened from 9.2 in the FSI 2008 to 9.5 in theFSI 2009. Nearly 70% of Nigerians live below the poverty line, while manygovernment officials have become wealthy by taking bribes and embezzling funds.The economic indicator worsened from 5.9 in the FSI 2008 to 6.6 in the FSI 2009.Nigeria is the fifth-largest exporter of oil and is one of four African members of OPEC. The Nigerian economy is heavily dependent on revenues from oil, whichmake up 95% of the countrys exports and 20% of its GDP. As such, the economy is

extremely vulnerable; the recent fall in the price of oil has severely damaged theNigerian economy, forcing the government to make significant budget cuts. Oilrevenues have been further hampered by the insurgency in the oil-rich Niger Delta,which has disrupted production. The government has recently made efforts toexpand the agricultural sector in order to keep up with the nations growingpopulation. The World Bank is heavily involved in Nigeria, having committed over$12 billion in aid since 1961. While the Bank has helped the Nigerian governmentexpand and diversify its economy, it will take many years to complete the processand make the economy less vulnerable to fluctuations in the oil price.

Political/Military IndicatorsThe indicator for legitimacy of the state worsened from 8.9 in the FSI 2008 to 9.2 inthe FSI 2009. The current president, Umaru Musa YarAdua, was elected in April2007 in an election that was widely considered to be illegitimate. Corruption remainsendemic in Nigeria; billions of dollars of public funds have been stolen over theyears. Many state governments and other high level officials were also exposed incorruption scandals. Graft is particularly prominent in areas concerning the countrysoil industry, which accounts for 20% of the nations GDP. Several instances of officials taking bribes from international corporations in exchange for drillingcontracts have been reported in recent years. The public services indicator worsenedfrom 8.7 in the FSI 2008 to 9.0 in the FSI 2009. The Nigerian government strugglesto provide basic services, including clean water and electricity, to much of thepopulation. Infrastructure development and health care programs often lack fundingdue to corruption and an unstable economy. Nigeria has a 68% literacy rate andspends less than 1% of its GDP on education. The government also struggles toprotect citizens in the Delta region from militants; foreigners and wealthy Nigeriansoften hire private bodyguards to prevent kidnappings, which are common in theregion. The human rights indicator worsened from 7.5 in the FSI 2008 to 8.6 in theFSI 2009. The Nigerian police routinely extort civilians and have been responsiblefor several politically motivated killings. The police were unable to control politicalviolence in the city of Jos following local elections in November 2008, resulting in thedeaths of over 400 civilians. The police have also been accused of killing more than90 rioters, mostly Muslims. The security apparatus indicator worsened from 9.2 inthe FSI 2008 to 9.4 in the FSI 2009. The Nigerian police operate with littleoversight, often establishing rackets and acting with near impunity. The governmenthas been largely unable to control the growth of local militias in the Niger Delta,some of whom are simply gangs of robbers. Their attacks on oil refineries andcivilian populations increased throughout 2008. The factionalized elites indicator also


14/35



worsened from 9.3 in the FSI 2008 to 9.6 in the FSI 2009. Conflicts betweenreligious populations often result in local violence, and voting is often along ethniclines. The external intervention indicator remained at 6.1 in the FSI 2009. Foreign-based oil companies remain heavily involved in Nigerian oil production. The WorldBank and International Monetary Fund have extensive development operations inNigeria, along with the United Nations Development Program.

Core Five State Institutions

After 30 years of a nearly continuous succession of military dictators, Nigeria held itsthird consecutive democratic elections in 2007. Umaru YarAdua, a member of themajority Peoples Democratic Party, won the election, which was condemned both

domestically and internationally as flawed. YarAdua has done little to curb thewidespread corruption that exists in the Nigerian government, has been unable tounify the competing religious and ethnic groups in the country, and has notinvigorated the economy.

The Nigerian military is among the best-trained and supplied in West Africa, largelydue to the attention it received under 30 years of military dictatorships. Nigeriacommits more soldiers to UN peacekeeping operations than any other African nation.The military is currently fighting a well-armed militant group in the Niger Delta,which they have been unable to dislodge after several years of fighting.

The Nigerian police force is highly corrupt, poorly trained, and has been accused of committing widespread human rights abuses with near impunity. They have beenunable to prevent violent riots in many major cities, the most serious of whichresulted in over 400 deaths in November 2008. The police have been accused of shooting over 90 of the victims. Like much of the nation, the police force suffersfrom religious and ethnic divisions.

The judiciary is poorly trained and underpaid, making it susceptible to corruption.Many judges have been accused of taking bribes or making rulings based on theirown interests. Nigerian law is not uniform, as the predominantly Muslim northernstates have recently adopted Sharia law in criminal matters as well as in domesticcases.

Civil servants are poorly paid and consistently fail to perform their duties. Positions

are often appointed based on ethnic, religious, or political backgrounds instead of merit, and corruption is widespread.

PrognosisAs the continents most populous nation and the worlds fifth-leading oil exporter,Nigeria has the potential to become one of the wealthiest nations in Africa.However, institutionalized corruption and economic mismanagement robbed thecountry of significant amounts of oil revenue, and the economy is vulnerable tofluctuations in oil prices. Millions are unemployed and 70% of the population livebelow the poverty line. If the government is able to successfully allocate oilrevenues toward building infrastructure and developing other sectors of the nationseconomy, Nigeria could emerge as one of the most prosperous nations in Africa.


15/35



However, efforts to fight government corruption and bridge ethnic and religious gapsamong the Nigerian people have been largely unsuccessful and it is likely that thesefactors will inhibit Nigerias progress for many years.

Recent Developments

June 2009: Royal Dutch Shell agrees to pay a $15.5 million settlement for humanrights abuses and environmental damage caused in the Niger Delta. A lawsuitclaimed that Shell was complicit in the military regimes execution of Ken Soro-Wiwa,a prominent Ogoni environmental activist, in 1995. Shell has denied anywrongdoing, and claimed the settlement was reached for humanitarian reasons.

July 2009: The Nigerian government extended an offer of amnesty to rebel groupsin the Niger Delta, which has succeeded in dividing the rebels, but has not ended theinsurgency.

Last updated August 27, 2009. Copyright (C) 2009 The Fund for Peace(http://www.fundforpeace.org/web/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=415&Itemid=579)

Nigeria - Self assessment ScheduleKey Indicators Your Score

I-1. Mounting Demographic PressuresI-2. Massive Movement of Refugees or Internally DisplacedPersons creating Complex Humanitarian EmergenciesI-3. Legacy of Vengeance-Seeking Group Grievance or GroupParanoia

I-4. Chronic and Sustained Human Flight

I-5. Uneven Economic Development along Group LinesI-6. Sharp and/or Severe Economic Decline

I-7. Criminalization and/or Delegitimization of the StateI-8. Progressive Deterioration of Public ServicesI-9. Suspension or Arbitrary Application of the Rule of Law andWidespread Violation of Human RightsI-10. Security Apparatus Operates as a "State Within a State"I-11. Rise of Factionalized ElitesI-12. Intervention of Other States or External Political Actors

Political Indicators

Social Indicators

Economic Indicators


16/35



Part 2

DefinitionA state could be said to "succeed" if it maintains, in the words of Max Weber , amonopoly on the legitimate use of physical force within its borders. When this isbroken (e.g., through the dominant presence of warlords , paramilitary groups, orterrorism ), the very existence of the state becomes dubious, and the state becomesa failed state . The difficulty of determining whether a government maintains "amonopoly on the legitimate use of force" (which includes the problems of thedefinition of "legitimate") means it is not clear precisely when a state can be said tohave "failed." This problem of legitimacy can be solved by understanding what Weberintended by it. Weber clearly explains that only the state has the means of production necessary for physical violence (politics as vocation). This means that thestate does not require legitimacy for achieving monopoly on the means of violence(de facto) but will need one if it needs to use it (de jure).The term is also used in the sense of a state that has been rendered ineffective (i.e.,has nominal military/police control over its territory only in the sense of having noarmed opposition groups directly challenging state authority; in short, the "no newsis good news" approach) and is not able to enforce its laws uniformly because of highcrime rates, extreme political corruption , an extensive informal market , impenetrablebureaucracy, judicial ineffectiveness, military interference in politics, culturalsituations in which traditional leaders wield more power than the state over a certainarea but do not compete with the state, or a number of other factors.

Crisis States Research CentreThe Crisis States Research Centre defines a failed state as a condition of statecollapse i.e. , a state that can no longer perform its basic security anddevelopment functions and that has no effective control over its territory andborders. A failed state is one that can no longer reproduce the conditions for its ownexistence. This term is used in very contradictory ways in the policy community (forinstance, there is a tendency to label a poorly performing state as failed atendency the Crisis States Research Centre rejects). The opposite of a failed state is an enduring state and the absolute dividing line between these two conditions isdifficult to ascertain at the margins. Even in a failed state, some elements of thestate, such as local state organisations, might continue to exist.

Failed States Index

Failed States according to Foreign Policy , 2005-2007Alert Warning Moderate Sustainable No Information / Dependent Territory


17/35



Since 2005 the United States think-tank , the Fund for Peace and the magazineForeign Policy , publishes an annual index called the Failed States Index . The list onlyassesses sovereign states (determined by membership in the United Nations.) [3] Several territories are excluded until their political status and UN membership isratified in international law. For example, Taiwan , the Palestinian Territories ,Northern Cyprus , Kosovo , and Western Sahara are not included in the list, eventhough some are recognized as sovereign states by some nations. Ranking is basedon the total scores of the 12 indicators (see below.) For each indicator, the ratingsare placed on a scale of 0 to 10, with 0 being the lowest intensity (most stable) and10 being the highest intensity (least stable). The total score is the sum of the 12indicators and is on a scale of 0-120. [3]

Indicators of state vulnerability

The index's ranks are based on twelve indicators of state vulnerability - four social,two economic and six political. [4] The indicators are not designed to forecast whenstates may experience violence or collapse. Instead, they are meant to measure astate's vulnerability to collapse or conflict. All countries in the red ( Alert , FSI of 90 ormore), orange ( Warning , FSI of 60 or more), or yellow ( Moderate , FSI of 30 ormore) categories display some features that make parts of their societies andinstitutions vulnerable to failure. Some in the yellow zone may be failing at a fasterrate than those in the more dangerous orange or red zones, and therefore couldexperience violence sooner. Conversely, some in the red zone, though critical, mayexhibit some positive signs of recovery or be deteriorating slowly, giving them timeto adopt mitigating strategies. [3]

Social indicators

1. Demographic pressures: including the pressures deriving from high population density relativeto food supply and other life-sustaining resources. The pressure from a population's settlementpatterns and physical settings, including border disputes, ownership or occupancy of land, accessto transportation outlets, control of religious or historical sites, and proximity to environmentalhazards. [5]

2. Massive movement of refugees and internally displaced peoples: forced uprooting of largecommunities as a result of random or targeted violence and/or repression, causing food shortages,disease, lack of clean water, land competition, and turmoil that can spiral into larger humanitarianand security problems, both within and between countries. [6]

3. Legacy of vengeance-seeking group grievance: based on recent or past injustices, which coulddate back centuries. Including atrocities committed with impunity against communal groupsand/or specific groups singled out by state authorities, or by dominant groups, for persecution orrepression. Institutionalized political exclusion. Public scapegoating of groups believed to have

acquired wealth, status or power as evidenced in the emergence of "hate" radio, pamphleteeringand stereotypical or nationalistic political rhetoric. [7] 4. Chronic and sustained human flight: both the " brain drain " of professionals, intellectuals and

political dissidents and voluntary emigration of "the middle class." Growth of exile/ expat communities are also used as part of this indicator. [8]

Economic indicators

5. Uneven economic development along group lines: determined by group-based inequality, orperceived inequality, in education, jobs, and economic status. Also measured by group-basedpoverty levels, infant mortality rates, education levels. [9]


18/35



6. Sharp and/or severe economic decline: measured by a progressive economic decline of thesociety as a whole (using: per capita income, GNP, debt, child mortality rates, poverty levels,business failures.) A sudden drop in commodity prices, trade revenue, foreign investment or debtpayments. Collapse or devaluation of the national currency and a growth of hidden economies,

including the drug trade, smuggling, and capital flight. Failure of the state to pay salaries of government employees and armed forces or to meet other financial obligations to its citizens, suchas pension payments. [10]

Political indicators

7. Criminalization and/or delegitimisation of the state: endemic corruption or profiteering byruling elites and resistance to transparency, accountability and political representation. Includesany widespread loss of popular confidence in state institutions and processes. [11]

8. Progressive deterioration of public services: a disappearance of basic state functions that servethe people, including failure to protect citizens from terrorism and violence and to provideessential services, such as health, education, sanitation, public transportation. Also using the stateapparatus for agencies that serve the ruling elites, such as the security forces, presidential staff,central bank, diplomatic service, customs and collection agencies. [12]

9. Widespread violation of human rights: an emergence of authoritarian, dictatorial or militaryrule in which constitutional and democratic institutions and processes are suspended ormanipulated. Outbreaks of politically inspired (as opposed to criminal) violence against innocentcivilians. A rising number of political prisoners or dissidents who are denied due processconsistent with international norms and practices. Any widespread abuse of legal, political andsocial rights, including those of individuals, groups or cultural institutions (e.g., harassment of thepress, politicization of the judiciary, internal use of military for political ends, public repression of political opponents, religious or cultural persecution.) [13]

10. Security apparatus as state within a state: an emergence of elite or praetorian guards thatoperate with impunity. Emergence of state-sponsored or state-supported private militias thatterrorize political opponents, suspected "enemies," or civilians seen to be sympathetic to theopposition. An "army within an army" that serves the interests of the dominant military or political

clique. Emergence of rival militias, guerilla forces or private armies in an armed struggle orprotracted violent campaigns against state security forces. [14]

11. Rise of factionalised elites: a fragmentation of ruling elites and state institutions along grouplines. Use of aggressive nationalistic rhetoric by ruling elites, especially destructive forms of communal irredentism (e.g., "Greater Serbia") or communal solidarity (e.g., " ethnic cleansing ","defending the faith "). [15]

12. Intervention of other states or external factors: military or Para-military engagement in theinternal affairs of the state at risk by outside armies, states, identity groups or entities that affectthe internal balance of power or resolution of the conflict. Intervention by donors, especially if there is a tendency towards over-dependence on foreign aid or peacekeeping missions. [16]


19/35



Failed States List

2009

Failed States according to the "Failed States Index 2009" of Foreign Policy Alert Warning No Information / Dependent Territory Moderate Sustainable

177 states were included in the list, of which 38 were classified as "alert", 93 as "warning", 33as "moderate", 13 as "sustainable". The worst 20 states are shown below. For the entireranking see List of countries by Failed States Index . Change in rank from 2008 is shown inparentheses. [17]

1. Somalia (0)2. Zimbabwe (+1)3. Sudan (-1)4. Chad (0)

5. Democratic Republic of the Congo (+1)6. Iraq (-1)

7. Afghanistan (0)8. Central African Republic (+2)9. Guinea (+2)10. Pakistan (-1)

11. Cte d'Ivoire (-3)12. Haiti (+2)13. Burma (0)14. Kenya (+12)15. Nigeria (+3) 16. Ethiopia (0)17. North Korea (-2)

18. Yemen (+3)19. Bangladesh (-7)20. Timor-Leste (+5)

2008


177 states were included in the list, of which 35 were classified as "alert", 92 as "warning", 35as "moderate", 15 as "sustainable". The worst 20 states are shown below. Change in rankfrom 2007 is shown in parentheses. [18]

1. Somalia (+2) 11. Guinea (-2)


20/35



2. Sudan (-1)3. Zimbabwe (+1)4. Chad (+1)5. Iraq (-3)

6. Democratic Republic of the Congo (+1)7. Afghanistan (+1)8. Cte d'Ivoire (-2)9. Pakistan (+3)10. Central African Republic (0)

12. Bangladesh (+4)13. Burma/Myanmar (+2)14. Haiti (-3)15. North Korea (-2)16. Ethiopia (+2)17. Uganda (-1)18. Lebanon (+10) [19] 19. Nigeria (-1) 20. Sri Lanka (+5) [20]

2007


177 states were included in the list, of which 32 were classified as "alert", 97 as "warning", 33as "moderate", 15 as "sustainable". The worst 20 states are shown below. Change in rankfrom 2006 is shown in parentheses. [21]

1. Sudan (0)2. Iraq (+2)3. Somalia (+4)4. Zimbabwe (+1)5. Chad (+1)6. Cte d'Ivoire (-3)

7. Democratic Republic of the Congo (-5)8. Afghanistan (+2)9. Guinea (+2)10. Central African Republic (+3)

11. Haiti (-3)12. Pakistan (-3)13. North Korea (+1)14. Burma/Myanmar (+4)15. Uganda (+6) [22] 16. Bangladesh (+3)17. Nigeria (+5) [23] 18. Ethiopia (+8) [24] 19. Burundi (-4)20. Timor-Leste (N/A) [25]

[edit ] 2006


21/35




146 states were included in the 2006 list, of which 28 were classified as "alert", 78 as "warning", 27 as"moderate", 13 as "sustainable". The worst 20 states are shown below. Change in rank from 2005 is shownin parentheses. [26]

1. Sudan (+2)

2. Democratic Republic of the Congo (0)3. Cte d'Ivoire (-2)4. Iraq (0)5. Zimbabwe (+10)6. Chad (+1)7. Somalia (-2)8. Haiti (+2)9. Pakistan (+25) [27] 10. Afghanistan (+1)

11. Guinea (+5)12. Liberia (-3)13. Central African Republic (+7)14. North Korea (-1)15. Burundi (+3)16. Yemen (-8)17. Sierra Leone (-11)18. Burma/Myanmar (+5) [28] 19. Bangladesh (-2)

20. Nepal (+15) [29]

2005

Failed States according to the "Failed States Index 2005" of Foreign Policy Alert Warning Moderate / Sustainable / No Information / Dependent Territory

2005 was the first year that the Fund for Peace published the list. 76 states were analyzed, of which 33 were classified as "alert" and 43 as "warning" (ratings better than "warning" werenot done in this year). The worst 20 are shown below. [30]

1. Cte d'Ivoire 2. Democratic Republic of the Congo 3. Sudan 4. Iraq 5. Somalia 6. Sierra Leone 7. Chad 8. Yemen 9. Liberia 10. Haiti

11. Afghanistan 12. Rwanda 13. North Korea 14. Colombia 15. Zimbabwe 16. Guinea 17. Bangladesh 18. Burundi 19. Dominican Republic 20. Central African Republic

See also List of countries by Failed States Index Rogue state Ochlocracy Crisis state


22/35



Fragile state Crisis States Research Centre Violent non-state actor Pariah state

References1. ^ "Failed States FAQ Number 6 ". the Fund for Peace.

http://www.fundforpeace.org/web/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=102&Itemid=327#3 . Retrieved 2007-10-22.

2. ^ a b Patrick, Stewart (2007). "'Failed' States and Global Security: Empirical Questions and PolicyDilemmas". International Studies Review (Blackwell Publishing) 9 : 644662. 1079-1760 .

3. ^ a b c "Failed States FAQ ". the Fund for Peace.http://www.fundforpeace.org/web/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=102&Itemid=327 . Retrieved 2007-08-25.

4. ^ "Failed States list 2007 ". Foreign Policy magazine.http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3865 . Retrieved 2007-06-19.

5. ^ "Demographic pressures ". the Fund for Peace.http://www.fundforpeace.org/web/content/fsi/fsi_1.htm . Retrieved 2007-08-25.

6. ^ "Massive movement of refugees and internally displaced peoples ". the Fund for Peace.http://www.fundforpeace.org/web/content/fsi/fsi_2.htm . Retrieved 2007-08-25.

7. ^ "Legacy of vengeance-seeking group grievance ". the Fund for Peace.http://www.fundforpeace.org/web/content/fsi/fsi_3.htm . Retrieved 2007-08-25.

8. ^ "Chronic and sustained human flight ". the Fund for Peace.http://www.fundforpeace.org/web/content/fsi/fsi_4.htm . Retrieved 2007-08-25.

9. ^ "Uneven economic development along group lines ". the Fund for Peace.http://www.fundforpeace.org/web/content/fsi/fsi_5.htm . Retrieved 2007-08-25.

10. ^ "Sharp and/or severe economic decline ". the Fund for Peace.http://www.fundforpeace.org/web/content/fsi/fsi_6.htm . Retrieved 2007-08-25.

11. ^ "Criminalization and delegitimisation of the state ". the Fund for Peace.http://www.fundforpeace.org/web/content/fsi/fsi_7.htm . Retrieved 2007-08-25.

12. ^ "Progressive deterioration of public services ". the Fund for Peace.http://www.fundforpeace.org/web/content/fsi/fsi_8.htm . Retrieved 2007-08-25.

13. ^ "Widespread violation of human rights ". the Fund for Peace.http://www.fundforpeace.org/web/content/fsi/fsi_9.htm . Retrieved 2007-08-25.

14. ^ "Security apparatus ". the Fund for Peace.http://www.fundforpeace.org/web/content/fsi/fsi_10.htm . Retrieved 2007-08-25.

15. ^ "Rise of factionalised elites: ". the Fund for Peace.http://www.fundforpeace.org/web/content/fsi/fsi_11.htm . Retrieved 2007-08-25.16. ^ "Intervention of other states ". the Fund for Peace.

http://www.fundforpeace.org/web/content/fsi/fsi_12.htm . Retrieved 2007-08-25.17. ^ "Failed States Index 2009 ". Fund for Peace.

http://www.fundforpeace.org/web/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=99&Itemid=323 . Retrieved 2009-06-25.

18. ^ "Failed States list 2008 ". Fund for Peace.http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=4350 . Retrieved 2008-06-27.

19. ^ Lebanon was ranked 28th in 2007.20. ^ Sri Lanka was ranked 25th in 2007.21. ^ "Failed States list 2007 ". Fund for Peace.


22. ^ Uganda was ranked 21st in 2006.23. ^ Nigeria was ranked 22nd in 2006.

24. ^ Ethiopia was ranked 26th in 2006.25. ^ 2007 was the first year in which Timor-Leste (East Timor) was included.26. ^ "Failed States list 2006 ". Fund for Peace.

http://www.fundforpeace.org/programs/fsi/fsindex2006.php . Retrieved 2007-06-19.27. ^ Pakistan was ranked 34th in 2005.28. ^ Burma/Myanmar was ranked 23rd in 2005.29. ^ Nepal was ranked 35th in 2005.30. ^ "Failed States list 2005 ". Fund for Peace.


External links Center of Defence Information Resources on Failed States The "failed State" and international law - Daniel Threr, International Review of the Red Cross

(December 12, 1999)


23/35



List of countries by Failed States IndexFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nations ranked "Alert" in red, "Warning" in orange, "Moderate" in green, and "Sustainable" in blue.

This is a list of countries by order of appearance in the Fund For Peace 's FailedStates Index. A failed state has several attributes. Common indicators include a statewhose central government is so weak or ineffective that it has little practical controlover much of its territory; non-provision of public services; widespread corruptionand criminality; refugees and involuntary movement of populations; sharp economicdecline. Since 2005, the index has been published annually by the United States think-tank Fund for Peace and the magazine Foreign Policy . [1]

Change in rank from 2008 is shown in parentheses and the three table headingscorrespond to those used by the Fund for Peace and Foreign Policy magazine. Taiwan(Republic of China), Kosovo, and Palestine were not included. This is the current listfor 2009. [2]

Alert!

The 2009 Indexs failed states (Alert! category) are (from order of failure): Somalia,Zimbabwe, Sudan, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Iraq, Afghanistan,Central African Republic, Guinea, Pakistan, Cote dIvoire, Haiti, Myanmar, Kenya,Nigeria, Ethiopia, North Korea, Yemen, Bangladesh, East Timor, Uganda, Sri Lanka,Niger, Burundi, Nepal, Cameroon, Guinea-Bissau, Malawi, Lebanon, Republic of theCongo, Uzbekistan, Sierra Leone, Georgia, Liberia, Burkina Faso, Eritrea, Tajikistanand Iran.

Rank

2009 Change comparedto 2008

CountryFSIin

2009

1 (0) Somalia 114.72 (1) Zimbabwe 114.03 (1) Sudan 112.4

4 (0) Chad 112.2

5 (1) Democratic Republicof the Congo

108.7

6 (1) Iraq 108.6

7 (0) Afghanistan 108.2

8 (2) Central AfricanRepublic

105.4

Rank

2009 Change comparedto 2008

CountryFSIin

2009

20 (5) East Timor 97.221 (5) Uganda 96.9

22 (2) Sri Lanka 96.7

23 (1) Niger 96.5

24 (0) Burundi 95.7

25 (2) Nepal 95.4

26 (8) Cameroon 95.3

27 (5) Guinea-Bissau 94.8

28 (1) Malawi 93.8


24/35


25/35


26/35



142 Poland 49.6

143 Malta 48.8

144 Slovakia 48.6

145 Lithuania 48.0146 Oman 47.2

147 Greece 46.1

148 Mauritius 44.7

158 France 35.3

159 United States 34.0

160 Singapore 33.8

161 United Kingdom 33.6162 Belgium 33.5

163 Portugal 32.7

164 Japan 31.2

Sustainable

Rank Country FSI 2009

165 Iceland 29.0

166 Canada 27.7

167 Luxembourg 27.6168 Austria 27.6

169 Netherlands 27.0

170 Australia 25.9171 New Zealand 23.3

Rank Country FSI 2009

172 Denmark 23.2

173 Ireland 21.6

174 Switzerland 21.2

175 Sweden 20.6

176 Finland 19.2

177 Norway 18.3

Notes

1. ^ "Failed States FAQ Number 6 ". the Fund for Peace.http://www.fundforpeace.org/web/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=102&Itemid=327#3 . Retrieved 2007-10-22.

2. ^ Failed States Index: 2009 The Fund for Peace. Retrieved 24 June 20093. ^ "RP could land on list of failed states"

External links

Failed States List 2007 The Fund for Peace. Retrieved on 2007-09-17 Failed States List 2008 The Fund for Peace. Retrieved on 2008-07-14 Failed States List 2009 The Fund for Peace.


27/35



EXCLUSIVENoam Chomsky on Failed States: The Abuse of Power and theAssault on Democracy

The New York Times calls him arguably the most important intellectual alive. The Boston Globe calls him Americas most useful citizen

He was recently voted the worlds number one intellectual in a poll by Prospectand Foreign Policy magazines.

Were talking about Noam Chomsky, professor of linguistics at theMassachusetts Institute of Technology and one of the foremost critics of U.S.foreign policy. Professor Chomsky has just released a new book titled FailedStates: The Abuse of Power and the Assault on Democracy. It examines howthe United States is beginning to resemble a failed state that cannotprotect its citizens from violence and has a government that regards itself asbeyond the reach of domestic or international law.

In the book, Professor Noam Chomsky presents a series of solutions to help rescue the USfrom turning into a failed state. They include: Accept the jurisdiction of the InternationalCriminal Court and the World Court; Sign the Kyoto protocols on global warming; Let theUnited Nations take the lead in international crises; Rely on diplomatic and economicmeasures rather than military ones in confronting terror; and Sharply reduce military spendingand sharply increase social spending

In his first broadcast interview upon the publication of his book, Professor Noam Chomsky joins us today from Boston for the hour.

AMY GOODMAN: In this first broadcast interview upon publication of his book, ProfessorNoam Chomsky joins us today from Boston for the hour. We welcome you to Democracy Now!,

Noam.

NOAM CHOMSKY: Glad to be with you again.

AMY GOODMAN: Its good to have you with us. Failed States , what do you mean?

NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, over the years there have been a series of concepts developed to justify the use of force in international affairs for a long period. It was possible to justify it onthe pretext, which usually turned out to have very little substance, that the U.S. wasdefending itself against the communist menace. By the 1980s, that was wearing pretty thin.The Reagan administration concocted a new category: terrorist states. They declared a war onterror as soon as they entered office in the early 1980s, 1981. We have to defend ourselvesfrom the plague of the modern age, return to barbarism, the evil scourge of terrorism, and so

on, and particularly state-directed international terrorism.

A few years laterthis is ClintonClinton devised the concept of rogue states. Its 1994, wehave to defend ourselves from rogue states. Then, later on came the failed states, whicheither threaten our security, like Iraq, or require our intervention in order to save them, likeHaiti, often devastating them in the process. In each case, the terms have been pretty hard tosustain, because its been difficult to overlook the fact that under any, even the mostconservative characterization of these notionslets say U.S. lawthe United States fits fairlywell into the category, as has often been recognized. By now, for example, the categoryevenin the Clinton years, leading scholars, Samuel Huntington and others, observed thatin themajor journals, Foreign Affairs that in most of the world, much of the world, the UnitedStates is regarded as the leading rogue state and the greatest threat to their existence.


28/35



By now, a couple of years later, Bush years, same journals leading specialists dont evenreport international opinion. They just describe it as a fact that the United States has becomea leading rogue state. Surely, its a terrorist state under its own definition of internationalterrorism, not only carrying out violent terrorist acts and supporting them, but even radically

violating the so-called Bush Doctrine, that a state that harbors terrorists is a terrorist state.Undoubtedly, the U.S. harbors leading international terrorists, people described by the F.B.I.and the Justice Department as leading terrorists, like Orlando Bosch, now Posada Carriles, notto speak of those who actually implement state terrorism.

And I think the same is true of the category failed states. The U.S. increasingly has taken onthe characteristics of what we describe as failed states. In the respects that one mentioned,and also, another critical respect, namely thewhat is sometimes called a democratic deficit,that is, a substantial gap between public policy and public opinion. So those suggestions thatyou just read off, Amy, those are actually not mine. Those are pretty conservativesuggestions. They are the opinion of the majority of the American population, in fact, anoverwhelming majority. And to propose those suggestions is to simply take democracyseriously. Its interesting that on these examples that youve read and many others, there isan enormous gap between public policy and public opinion. The proposals, the general

attitudes of the public, which are pretty well studied, areboth political parties are, on most of these issues, well to the right of the population.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Well, Professor Chomsky, in the early parts of the book, especially on theissue of the one characteristic of a failed state, which is its increasing failure to protect its owncitizens, you lay out a pretty comprehensive look at what the, especially in the Bush years, thewar on terrorism has meant in terms of protecting the American people. And you lay outclearly, especially since the war, the invasion of Iraq, that terrorist, major terrorist action andactivity around the world has increased substantially. And also, you talk about the dangers of a possible nuclearnuclear weapons being used against the United States. Could you expandon that a little bit?

NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, there has been a very serious threat of nuclear war. Its not

unfortunately, its not much discussed among the public. But if you look at the literature of strategic analysts and so on, theyre extremely concerned. And they describe particularly theBush administration aggressive militarism as carrying an appreciable risk of ultimate doom, to quote one, apocalypse soon, to quote Robert McNamara and many others. And theresgood reasons for it, I mean, which could explain, and they explain. Thats been expanded bythe Bush administration consciously, not because they want nuclear war, but its just not ahigh priority. So the rapid expansion of offensive U.S. military capacity, including themilitarization of space, which is the U.S.s pursuit alone. The world has been trying very hardto block it. 95% of the expenditures now are from the U.S., and theyre expanding.

All of these measures bring about a completely predictable reaction on the part of the likelytargets. They dont say, you know, Thank you. Here are our throats. Please cut them. Theyreact in the ways that they can. For some, it will mean responding with the threat or maybeuse of terror. For others, more powerful ones, its going to mean sharply increasing their own

offensive military capacity. So Russian military expenditures have sharply increased inresponse to Bush programs. Chinese expansion of offensive military capacity is also beginningto increase for the same reasons. All of that threatensraises the already severe threat of evenof just accidental nuclear war. These systems are on computer-controlled alert. And weknow that our own systems have many errors, which are stopped by human intervention.Their systems are far less secure; the Russian case, deteriorated. These moves all sharplyenhance the threat of nuclear war. Thats serious nuclear war that Im talking about.

Theres also the threat of dirty bombs, small nuclear explosions. Small means not so small,but in comparison with a major attack, which would pretty much exterminate civilized life. TheU.S. intelligence community regards the threat of a dirty bomb, say in New York, in the nextdecade as being probably greater than 50%. And those threats increase as the threat of terrorincreases.


29/35



And Bush administration policies have, again, consciously been carried out in a way, whichthey know is likely to increase the threat of terror. The most obvious example is the Iraqinvasion. That was undertaken with the anticipation that it would be very likely to increase thethreat of terror and also nuclear proliferation. And, in fact, thats exactly what happened,

according to the judgment of the C.I.A., National Intelligence Council, foreign intelligenceagencies, independent specialists. They all point out that, yes, as anticipated, it increased thethreat of terror. In fact, it did so in ways well beyond what was anticipated.

To mention just one, we commonly read that there were no weapons of mass destructionfound in Iraq. Well, its not totally accurate. There were means to develop weapons of massdestruction in Iraq and known to be in Iraq. They were under guard by U.N. inspectors, whowere dismantling them. When Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and the rest sent in their troops, theyneglected to instruct them to guard these sites. The U.N. inspectors were expelled, the siteswere left unguarded. The inspectors continued their work by satellite and reported that over ahundred sites had been looted, in fact, systematically looted, not just somebody walking in,but careful looting. That included dangerous biotoxins, means to hide precision equipment tobe used to develop nuclear weapons and missiles, means to develop chemical weapons and soon. All of this has disappeared. One hates to imagine where its disappeared to, but it could

end up in New York.

AMY GOODMAN: Were talking to Noam Chomsky, and were going to come back with him.His new book, just published, is called Failed States: The Abuse of Power and the Assault onDemocracy . Well be back with Professor Chomsky in a minute.

[break]

AMY GOODMAN: Were talking to Professor Noam Chomsky, upon the release of his newbook, Failed States: The Abuse of Power and the Assault on Democracy . Noam Chomsky, aprofessor of linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Im Amy Goodman, herewith Juan Gonzalez. Juan?

JUAN GONZALEZ: Professor Chomsky, in your book you also talk about how Iraq has becomealmost an incubator or a university now for advanced training for terrorists, who then areleaving the country there and going around the world, very much as what happened in the1980s in Afghanistan. Could you talk about that somewhat?

NOAM CHOMSKY: Actually, thatsactually, these are just quotes from the C.I.A. and otherU.S. intelligence agencies and analysts. Yes, they describe Iraq now as a training ground forhighly professionalized terrorists skilled in urban contact. They do compare it to Afghanistan,but say that its much more serious, because of the high level of training and skill. These arealmost entirely Iraqis. Theres a small number of foreign fighters drawn to Iraq. Estimates aremaybe 5% to 10%. And they are, as in the case of Afghanistan, are expected to spread intothroughout many parts of the world and to carry out the kinds of terrorism that theyre trainedin, as a reaction toclearly reaction to the invasion. Iraq was, whatever you thought about it,was free from connections to terror prior to the invasion. Its now a major terror center.

Its not as President Bush says, that terrorists are being concentrated in Iraq so that we cankill them. These are terrorists who had no previous record of involvement in terrorism. Theforeign fighters who have come in, mostly from Saudi Arabia, have been investigatedextensively by Saudi and Israeli and U.S. intelligence, and what they conclude is that theywere mobilized by the Iraq war, no involvement in terrorist actions in the past. Andundoubtedly, just as expected, the Iraq war has raised an enormous hostility throughout muchof the world, and particularly the Muslim world.

It was the mostprobably the most unpopular war in history, and even before it was fought.Virtually no support for it anywhere, except the U.S. and Britain and a couple of other places.And since the war itself was perhaps one of the most incredible military catastrophes in


30/35



history, has caused utter disaster in Iraq and hasand all of that has since simply intensifiedthe strong opposition to the war of the kind that you heard from that Indonesian student of afew moments ago. But thats why it spread, and thats ait increases the reservoir of potentialsupport for the terrorists, who regard themselves as a vanguard, attempting to elicit support

from others, bring others to join with them. And the Bush administration is their leading ally inthis. Again, not my words, the words of the leading U.S. specialists on terror, Michael Scheuerin this case. And definitely, thats happened.

And its not the only case. I mean, in case after case, the Bush administration has simplydowngraded the threat of terror. One example is the report of the 9/11 Commission. Here inthe United States, the Bush administration didnt want the commission to be formed, tried toblock it, but it was finally formed. Bipartisan commission, gave many recommendations. Therecommendations, to a large extent, were not carried out. The commission members,including the chair, were appalled by this, set up their own private commission after their owntenure was completed, and continued to report that the measures are simply not being carriedout.

There are many other examples. One of the most striking is the Treasury Department has abranch, the Office of Financial Assets Control, which is supposed to monitor suspicious fundingtransfers around the world. Well, thats a core element of the so-called war on terror. Theyvegiven reports to Congress. It turns out that they have a few officials devoted to al-Qaeda andSaddam Hussein, but aboutI think it wassix times that many devoted to whether there areany evasions of the totally illegal U.S. embargo against Cuba.

There was an instance of that just a few months ago, when the U.S. infuriated even energycorporations by ordering a Sheraton Hotel in Mexico City to cancel a meeting between Cubanoil specialists and U.S. oil companies, including some big ones, seeking to explore thedevelopment of offshore Cuban oil resources. The government orderedthis OFAC ordered thehotel, the U.S. hotel, to expel the Cubans and terminate the meeting. Mexico wasnt terriblyhappy about this. Its a extraordinary arrogance. But it also reveals the hysterical fanaticism of the goal of strangling Cuba.

And we know why. Its a free country. We have records going from way back, and a richsource of them go back to the Kennedy-Johnson administrations. They had to carry out aterrorist war against Cuba, as they did, and try to strangle Cuba economically, because of Cubaswhat they called Cubas successful defiance of U.S. policies, going back to the MonroeDoctrine. No Russians, but the Monroe Doctrine, 150 years back at that time. And the goalwas, as was put very plainly by the Eisenhower and Kennedy administrations, to make thepeople of Cuba suffer. They are responsible for the fact that the government is in place. Wetherefore have to make them suffer and starve, so that theyll throw out the government. Itsa policy, which is pretty consistent. Its being applied right now in Palestine. It was appliedunder the Iraqi sanctions, plot in Chile, and so on. Its savage.

AMY GOODMAN: Were talking to Noam Chomsky, his new book, after he wrote Hegemony or Survival , one of scores of books, if not a hundred books that Professor Chomsky has written,his new one is called Failed States: The Abuse of Power and the Assault on Democracy .

You mention Israel, Palestine, and I wanted to ask you about this new study thats come out.A dean at Harvard University and a professor at the University of Chicago are coming underintense criticism for publishing an academic critique of the pro-Israel lobby in Washington. Thepaper charges that the United States has willingly set aside its own security and that of manyof its allies, in order to advance the interests of Israel. In addition, the study accuses the pro-Israel lobby, particularly AIPAC, the America Israel Public Affairs Committee, of manipulatingthe U.S. media, policing academia and silencing critics of Israel by labeling them as anti-Semitic. The study also examines the role played by the pro-Israel neoconservatives in thelead-up to the U.S. invasion of Iraq.


31/35



The authors are the Stephen Walt, a dean at Harvards Kennedy School of Government, andJohn Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago. They, themselves, are now being accused of anti-Semitism. In Washington, a Democratic congressman, Eliot Engle of New York, describedthe professors as dishonest so-called intellectuals and anti-Semites. The Harvard professor,

Ruth Wisse, called for the paper to be withdrawn. Harvard Law School professor, AlanDershowitz, described the study as trash that could have been written by neo-Nazi DavidDuke. The New York Sun reported Harvard has received several calls from pro-Israel donors,expressing concern about the paper, and Harvard has already taken steps to distance itself from the report. Last week, it removed the logo of the Kennedy School of Government fromthe paper and added a new disclaimer to the study. The report is 81 pages. It was originallypublished on Harvards website and an edited version appeared in the London Review of Books .

The controversy comes less than a year after Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitzattempted to block the publication of Norman Finkelsteins book Beyond Chutzpah: On theMisuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History . Now, this goes into a lot of issues: thecontent of the study, what you think of it, the response to it and also the whole critique. Inthis country, what happens to those who criticize the policies of the state of Israel? Noam

Chomsky.

NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, the answer to your last question is well described in NormanFinkelsteins quite outstanding book and also in the record of Dershowitzs attempts to preventits publication. Some of the documents were just published in the Journal of Palestine Studies .Finkelsteins book gives an extensive detailed account, the best one we have, of a frighteningrecord of Israeli crimes and abuses, where he relies on the most respectable sources, themajor human rights organizations, Israeli human rights organizations and others, anddemonstrates, just conclusively, that Alan Dershowitzs defense of these atrocities, based onno evidence at all, is outrageous and grotesque.

Nevertheless, Finkelstein comes under tremendous attack for being anti-Semitic, and so on.Now thats pretty normal. It goes back, I suppose, to the distinguished diplomat, Abba Eban

it must be thirty years agowrote in an American Jewish journal that the task of Zionists, hesaid, is to show that all political anti-Zionismthat means criticism of the policies of thestate of Israelis either anti-Semitism or Jewish self-hatred. Well, okay, that excludes allpossible criticism, by definition. As examples of neurotic Jewish self-hatred, I should declarean interest. He mentioned two people. I was one; the other was Izzy Stone.

Once you release the torrent of abuse, you dont need arguments and evidence, you can justscream. And Professors Walt and Mearsheimer deserve credit for publishing a study, whichthey knew was going to elicit the usual streams of abuse and hysteria from supporters of Israeli crimes and violence. However, we should recognize that this is pretty uniform. Try tosay a sane and uncontroversial word about any other issue dear to the hearts of theintellectual elite that theyve turned into holy writ, you get the same reaction. Soand theresno lobby, which does raise one of a few minor points that raises questions about the validity of the critique.

Its a serious, careful piece of work. It deserves to be read. They deserve credit for writing it.But it still it leaves open the question of how valid the analysis is, and I notice that theres apretty subtle question involved. Everyone agrees, on all sides, that there are a number of factors that enter into determining U.S. foreign policy. One is strategic and economic interestsof the major power centers within the United States. In the case of the Middle East, thatmeans the energy corporations, arms producers, high-tech industry, financia

Failed State Index 2009 and Nigeria - Understanding Why

Documents