Sustainable Norway and Failed State Pakistan

Sustainable Norway and Failed State Pakistan

Whether a country is sustainable or at a failed state is important in international affairs. As a contrast, we review a ‘sustainable state’ such as Norway against Pakistan to show the differences and the degrees to which Pakistan is verging on failure as a state. Norway has policies that allow it to gain high marks on issue areas such as environmental responsibility, military cooperation and fiscal responsibility with virtually low incidences of corruption. Pakistan, on the other hand, is the eleven most failed state and can’t be ignored as it is a detrimental liability to the international community-- not only a hot bed for terrorism, but unable to police its own borders and help its impoverished people. “Sustainable development means substantially reducing the pressure on the earth’s ecosystems, while lifting millions out of poverty. The Norwegian Government gives a high priority to this work. It sets ambitious goals and will be an important basis for our efforts in the years and it is imperative that sustainable development becomes an integrated part of al decision making processes,” stated Kristin Halvorsen, the Minister of Finance for Norway (www.regjeringen.no/upload/FIN/rapporter/R-0617E.pdf). Ideas of human rights, freedom of expression, and gender equality, as well as equitable distribution for a growing economy are valued aspects in many wealthy and developing nations, and they are building blocks to becoming a sustainable nation.

Sustainable development has been put firmly on the international agenda in response to the persistent poverty in many developing countries and growing pressure on the earth’s ecosystems, stated Halvorsen in (www.regjeringen.no/upload/FIN/rapporter/R-0617E.pdf) The most sustainable countries are Iceland, Switzerland, Costa Rica, Sweden, Norway, Mauritius, France, Austria, Cuba, and Colombia; at least according to Yale and Columbia Universities. The Environmental Performance Index 2010  shows a comprehensive sustainability rating system where 163 countries were judged based on 25 stringent sustainability performance indicators. The outcomes of the research are surprising to say the least, especially when it comes to Cuba and Columbia. This is really a “green” rating. The Climate and Pollution Agency under the direction of the Norwegian Ministry of the Environment the database of environmental performance indicators and provides more information on the environmental performance of Norway’s being a sustainable country. 

Norway has earned its way onto the list of the most sustainable countries in the world because of its active management and progressive environmental policies. However, though Norwegians have a very high level of affluence, it may prove difficult to attain the status of a sustainable country if the trending for consumption continues. This next chart shows that purchases abroad and purchases of "other goods and services" that has increased quite a bit over the last four decades. Consumption patterns are not sustainable and, if continued, could change Norway's ranking as one of the most sustainable countries.

On the other spectrum is Pakistan, a failed state. The top 20 failed states on the index are: Somalia, Chad, Sudan, Congo, Haiti, Zimbabwe, Afghanistan, Central African Republic, Iraq, Ivory Coast, Guinea, Pakistan, Yemen, Nigeria, Niger, Kenya, Burundi, Burma, Guinea-Bissau and Ethiopia “States fail when national governments lose control of part or all of their territory and can no longer ensure people’s security. Failing states often degenerate into civil war as opposing groups vie for power, (Brown)”.  Another reason for governments to breakdown is their inability to provide food security. This has been an overwhelming problem for developing nations especially since the 2007 rise in food prices. Among the top 20 countries on the 2010 Foreign Policy Failed States list, most are losing the battle between food production and population growth. There are also demographic indicators that show the viability of future political instability. Pakistan is no stranger to this, with various military coups, assassinations, and tumultuous wars.

Pakistan is in fact a failed state. The term is often used to describe a state having failed politically or economically, where some of the basic conditions and responsibilities such as an erosion of legitimate authority to make collective decisions. It is not able to provide public services and effectively interact with the other states as a member of the international community. In a failed state, like Pakistan, there can be corruption, crime, and a stark downfall in the state’s economy. Pakistan, in being a failed state, is a threat internationally.  The Taliban and Al Qaeda have their training camps within the country of Pakistan. “South Waziristan was a haven—and now the base from hundreds, perhaps thousands of Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters who had fled Afghanistan. Every major terrorist attack since 2004—London, Madrid, Bali, Casablanca, Istanbul, and Mumbai--has been traced back to the tribal areas of Pakistan,” (Weaver). The militias have too much power and the international community needs to get more involved, especially since the country has the 5^th largest nuclear arsenal, and the Pakistani Army has admitted they do not have control over their government, their streets, and their cities, especially in the tribal regions bordering Afghanistan. As a failed state, the country is a threat to all other states in the destabilized region and all over the world.

 Pakistan has been ranked 12th on a list of the “failed states” by Foreign Policy, a global magazine of politics, economics, and ideas. The report titled “The Failed States Index 2011” compiles a list of countries in terms of vulnerability. “From refugee flows to poverty, public services to security threats, the list takes together a country’s performance on this battery of indicators to reflect its stability, (The Express Tribune).”  In both 2009 and 2010, Pakistan took the number 10 spot on this index, whereas in 2008 it was ranked number nine. The 2011 Failed State Index reported states that Pakistan has long been dubbed the “world’s most dangerous country” in Washington policy circles. The report cites terrorism and civilian deaths as one major reason for Pakistan’s position, adding that the 2010 floods displaced millions of people, adding to the instability of the country.”

This is a list of countries by order of appearance in the Foreign Policy and Fund for Peace Failed States Index 

         One of the leading challenges facing the international community is how to prevent that slide into chaos and not go on as business as usual. Within the U.S. government, efforts to deal with weak and failing states are not a joint effort. What we need is new policies and an agency that deals with just failed states, like a department of global security that would be in place to help weak nations. We can learn from what makes a nation sustainable like Norway to help diplomatically with Pakistan. Issues such as debt relief and market access would be at the forefront. Populations would need to be stabilized and environmental support systems put in place. We would hope to end poverty and strengthen security locally and nationally. These are humanitarian issues that aren’t going away. Pakistan is improving slightly having pushed up from the 10^th most failed state last year to the 12^th this year. Better oversight and cooperation between the U.S. and Pakistan and the international community could really make a difference to help Pakistan become a sustainable country.