MoStFab: Back to Kunduz

Saturday, September 19, 2009

Back to Kunduz

It is good to see that the German edition of the Financial Times may now move beyond this ridiculous misrepresentation (by an external contributor) of what German-American debates were about in terms of tactics and operating procedures, as well as a downright absurd interpretation of "deterrence" as killing-a-lot-of-people-just-for-the-deterrence-of-it. The Kunduz airstrike was just bad, bad, bad, and they may be getting at this with the new bits of information that are constantly coming.

According to a recent report by FT (GER), relayed by Expatica, anonymous NATO officials (not my favourite source of information, of course) say that even a dreadful misunderstanding contributed to making the Kunduz airstrike happen ("Are you in contact?;" "Yes, visual contact"). To be exact, these anonymous friends of intra-alliance harmony are saying that Colonel Klein lied, but that seems to be beyond what necessarily has to be concluded at this point. I have some other questions, though, that have not yet been addressed - perhaps we will see clearer once that NATO report comes out.

0 comments:

Post a Comment

A conceptualisation of state failure in a nutshell

Hello, this is Péter Marton speaking. Let me say a few words here about what on Earth I'm referring to in the title of this blog I launched in 2007. This is due here for the attention of those, too, who might have read the greater part of the literature on state failure. One should, after all, make it clear what one means by what one says.
***
Reflecting the dual nature of the discourse, we can view states that are dysfunctional in one sense or another both with humanitarian and security concerns - in the most simple alternative terms: with concern for 'them' (the locals) and with concern for 'ourselves' ('over here'). That is the key to my conceptualisation. In e.g. Rotberg (2003, 2004) you'll find a mixed approach with security concerns voiced in the title of the volume of studies published in 2003 ('State Failure and State Weakness in a Time of Terror'), and humanitarian concerns voiced in basically all the studies included in it.
***
I define state failure as a phenomenon with the analogy of 'market failures' in mind. Just like an instance of market failure doesn't constitute an overall failure of the market as an institution, state failure doesn't necessarily mean the end or full absence of the state.
***
From a security point of view I conceptualise the state as 'a unit responsible for territorial control over a unit of world territory bounded by internationally recognised borders.' It is thus the failure of that unit when events or processes can take place within its boundaries that produce negative security consequences or 'negative spill-over effects' (NSEs) for the outside world (a neighbouring state or region or even all the states in the world, potentially). That may also be termed an 'IRG-failure,' the failure of the Internationally Recognised Government of the given state. It's a vital element that IRG-failure be contrary to the will of the IRG (which should be either unable to stop it from happening or be incapable of significantly hampering it). This way of defining state failure builds on the premise that security is globally interdependent - hence the definition of the 'chief function of the state' here is presented the way it is.
***
From a humanitarian point of view, I regard the state as 'the means for the population of a unit of world territory, inhabiting the area bounded by internationally recognised borders, to provide stable life prospects for the long run'. The humanitarian definition of state failure will thus be quite broad - which may restrict its analytical usefulness. It will cover civil war-torn states, extremely poor states, as well as authoritarian regimes that use a lot of arbitrary violence. It will exclude states that provide stability in one way or another - using Michael Nicholson's terms, these can either be ruled by an authoritarian regime producing 'coercive stability' or governed by a democratic regime producing 'consensual stability'.

Copyrights to all material on MoStFab (previously known as MStFB) are reserved, with the exception of such images, used here in the blog's author's view in accordance with 'fair use' terms, that belong to a copyright owner other than MoStFab. MoStFab's own content can be cited or excerpted in a sensible and proportionate manner, or e.g. included in non-commercial, on-line news digests, with proper reference (including a link) to MoStFab as the source, and to the author, by name, of any referenced post.

Saturday, September 19, 2009

Back to Kunduz

0 comments:

MoStFab on Twitter

Blog Archive

Blog 'n' roll

A conceptualisation of state failure in a nutshell

Visitors

Copyright notice

Labels