The consequences of failure or collapsed state may have many impacts on the international scene. Failed states can have negative transnational effects if the international community does not intervene. One of these consequences is the flows of refugee which can lead to the instability of a border state. This was the case with Rwanda and Uganda in the eighties and nineties. Moreover, failed states deal with corruption, drug and arms trafficking that can also lead to a regional insecurity. The Balkans exemplifies that consequence in the nineties. Further, more than ninety percent of production of drug is from failed states or countries in conflict(31). Afghanistan and Colombia exemplify that consequence where the absence of control makes easier the production. Another consequence of failure may be the spread of epidemics due to the weakening of the health public services and the risk to spread to others regions. The 2008 cholera epidemic in Zimbabwe exemplifies the consequence of health infrastructure failure. Finally, the examples of Pakistan and Afghanistan demonstrate another consequence that is terrorism.
So, the question is when intervening? When does the international community have to intervene in order to avoid these consequences or to re-establish a sustainable order? The Fund for Peace provides a conceptual analysis that defines five stages of conflict and a major decision point including the potential role of the international actors(32).
Table 1.3 Stages of conflict
Source: The Fund for Peace, Dr. Pauline H. Baker, The Conflict Assessment System Tool (CAST), 2006, http://www.fundforpeace.org
In stage 1 or 2, prevention is most effective. The critical decision point is between stage 2 and stage 3 as the local leaders are able to lead the state in a violent or non-violent direction toward transition or transformation and at this stage, decision makers are at a point of non-return(33). As the state reaches the stage 3 it cannot return to the previous stage: if the transition is violent, the state may deal with secession, increasingly conflict and ethnic cleansing; on the other hand, the state may deal with negotiations and reforms if the transition is non-violent(34). In stage 4, the situation may result in a military victory, warlordism or unresolved situation if the transformation was violent; on the other hand, it may lead to elections and resolution if the transformation was not violent(35). In stage 5, the state is in a peaceful situation trying to establish a democratic system or in a situation dominated by the military rule. However, it is important to notice that the state can improve or deteriorate its situation, especially if the new government is too weak to keep a sustainable peace. So it is clear that the international community should intervene the earliest that is in stage 1 or 2 in order to avoid negative transnational consequences and to avoid a state building process which may be costly and a sustainable security difficult to reach.
31 Paul Collier, the Bottom Billion: Why the poorest countries are failing and what can be done about it, Oxford University Press, 2007.
32 The Fund for Peace, Dr. Pauline H. Baker, The Conflict Assessment System Tool (CAST), 2006, http://www.fundforpeace.org
33 The Fund for Peace, Dr. Pauline H. Baker, The Conflict Assessment System Tool (CAST), 2006, http://www.fundforpeace.org
34 The Fund for Peace, Dr. Pauline H. Baker, The Conflict Assessment System Tool (CAST), 2006, http://www.fundforpeace.org
35 The Fund for Peace, Dr. Pauline H. Baker, The Conflict Assessment System Tool (CAST), 2006, http://www.fundforpeace.org
Page suivante : CHAPTER II: State Building - Theoretical framework