JJason Ye
10/24/2013
GVPT200
Chapter
10 of “The Nation-State and Global Order”
In my opinion, why some states fail is a
question for people who are studying international relation, one good thing
about recognizing failed states is that we can send in help for them and
sometimes establish a temporary government for them, like what the U.S did for Afghanistan,
but doing this just for failed states is not good enough, we also need to figure
out the cause of the failure in order to prevent it. I agree with the argument
proposed by Walter C. Opello, Jr. and Srephen J. Rosow, which is that a states
failure is related to colonialism, but I also think there are some other
factors that cause some states to fail, like the states’ culture and natural
resources.
The reason I agree with Walter C. Opello, Jr.
and Srephen J. Rosow is that throughout history, colonialism usually has a
negative effect on states, for example, during the World War II, different
parts of China were colonized by different western countries, they used the
Chinese people to mine natural resources like coal and ship them back to
Europe. They also signed inequity treaties with the corruptive Chinese
government officers in order to gain full control of Hong Kong and Taiwan and
in order to reduce the incentive of the Chinese people to fight back, opium was
introduced in China. Another example that illustrates the negative effect of
colonialism is when Belgium colonized Congo, the way Belgium colonized Congo is
more inhumane, they used the Congolese people as slaves for mining, and if they
don’t obey the order, the leader of Belgium would torture them to scare the
others. Unlike the partial colonization in China, the colonization of Congo
drained away most of the natural resources away from the Congolese. The biggest
reason that colonialism causes states to fail is that after a country has been colonized,
part of the natural resources or sometimes most of the natural resources are
drained way form it, and after the country that colonized it left, people try
to fight for the resources that are left in the country and with the lack of
government stability, riot breaks out in the country and as time went on, it
eventually leads the country to a failed state.
The other factor that caused a state to fail
is the lack of nature resources, even if the state has a stable government,
lack of nature resources equals to lack to contribute in the international
community, like we discussed in class, powerful states usually are not willing
to help out states that do not contribute in the international community.
While I do think that colonialism plays a large role when it comes to failed states, I completely agree with your last statement that the lack of natural resources lacks any type of contribution in the international world because there are many countries that are allied and have tied because of their trading network. Also, having great natural resources that other states want is good for the economy, an important factor that determines largely if a state is failed or not. However, I also think that the way the government runs its people also has a huge influence on whether the a state fails or not because it runs everything that has to do with it and if the government cannot run their state properly than there is no hope for the state to prosper.
ReplyDeleteI feel like you could somehow tie the government involvement within a state to their overall culture, like Jason had menitioned in his thesis. In the United States for example, we have a culture that is based on free will and decreased role of government in daily lives. However, in different states, especially those that were former colonies, there is more of a direct impact of the government on the overall daily lives of the people. What could cause a state to fail could be in fact too much government involvement. A prime example is when the government gets involved in the supply and demand of products.
DeleteOne thing to think about: There is a theory called the 'resource curse' that holds that resource rich countries (think the Middle East, parts of Africa) do not develop as easily as states without these resources.
ReplyDeleteI am not sure I agree with your example on China. While the Opium Wars significantly weakened China, the country as a whole did not come out as a failed state. I also think colonization itself does not directly cause a state to become a failed state I think a huge factor is the way their colonizers left. In the Belgian Congo, they left the Congolese people with little to no framework for a government or a way to manage their natural resources; they literally just left. India, on the other hand, benefited a great deal from the railroad and other technology/ways of life introduced by the British. I think that difference in the way colonizers ended colonization in a territory had a lot more influence on whether a state would become a failed state or not than just whether or not it was a colony.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Shiran that China collectively did not fail as a state and actually grew to become a huge power player in the world. As for Prof. Shirk's question I do agree because once it is know that a certain area contains valuable resources everybody wants in. If it is a country being colonized than the mother country uses the resources primarily for itself like Jason's argument on the Congo shows. Even if it is a self-sufficient country, other will invade to claim some of these resources or fight for rights to them causing wars, like the war on oil in the Middle East. A state's primary goal is to benefit itself and so it will do what it has to in order to obtain resources it feels it needs leaving any country that gets in its way worse off.
ReplyDelete