Pakistan is a top failed state

#2
Pranith_Almeida said:
A frightening prospect for the rest of the world given that the Islamic Republic of Pakistan has nuclear weapons :

Pakistan 'is a top failed state'

The current focus on Iran is I think of base. Pakistan is the more material candidate.

With serious problems in Balochistan, NWFP & Sindh its more then material stuff :wink:

Given the fact Pakistan had to resort to use army, gunships surely things must be real out of control.

The Balochi's want a bigger share of the natural resources while the govt disagrees.

Perfect ingredients for a civil war.

Though it depends which angle you view this situation from.
 
#4
BBC said:
FAILED STATES 2006 - TOP 10

1. Sudan (3)*
2. DR Congo (2)*
3. Ivory Coast (1)*
4. Iraq (4)*
5. Zimbabwe (15)*
6.= Chad (7)*
6.= Somalia (5)*
8. Haiti (10)*
9. Pakistan (34)*
10. Afghanistan (11)*
* Position in 2005 report

Full text: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4964444.stm
Iraq holding firm at 4, Pakistan climbing to 9, and re-entry into top ten for Afghanistan. Looks like neo-con democracy in these troubled states is really working! :wink:
 
#5
merkator said:
BBC said:
FAILED STATES 2006 - TOP 10

1. Sudan (3)*
2. DR Congo (2)*
3. Ivory Coast (1)*
4. Iraq (4)*
5. Zimbabwe (15)*
6.= Chad (7)*
6.= Somalia (5)*
8. Haiti (10)*
9. Pakistan (34)*
10. Afghanistan (11)*
* Position in 2005 report

Full text: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4964444.stm
Iraq holding firm at 4, Pakistan climbing to 9, and re-entry into top ten for Afghanistan. Looks like neo-con democracy in these troubled states is really working! :wink:
Yeah cause Iraq & Afghanistan has suuuch a positive long-term future ahead of them before the invasions.

Tricam.
 
#6
merkator said:
Iraq holding firm at 4, Pakistan climbing to 9, and re-entry into top ten for Afghanistan. Looks like neo-con democracy in these troubled states is really working! :wink:
I'd be interested in seeing the year 2000 pre-invasion figures and placements first before making any comments. I mean, it's not like Afghanistan - ongoing civil war with large swathes of the country run by religious nutters - and Iraq - chronically underfunded infrastructure for decades and a looted treasury - were exactly model countries to begin with were they?
 
#7
If you look at the model they use, the significant rise (into the Top 10) for Pakistan is as a result of the Earthquake, which lead to a significant increase in the numbers internally displaced persons. I suspect that next year they will drop down along way.

It is a faily broad measure of internal stresses which perhaps does not truely indicate (on an annual basis) the risks of other failed states developing but yr-on-yr it has the potentail to be a good I & W of states that are failing.

The system they use is interesting, it factors in wealth differentials, group (ethinic and social) conflicts/resentment and demographic pressures. If our or the US economy faltered I would expect to see our rankings increase significantly.
 
#8
The IMF and the WB may have been catalytic in bouncing the Pakistan's economy, but to say that the economy thereafter has faltered would not be correct. I believe the growth rate is 7%, which is quite impressive given the circumstances.

The insurrections in NWFP and Balochistan and the problems in the Northern Area, apart from the earthquake, is probably the main input as to what is causing human displacement and flux.

The other issues too have a significant bearing.
 
#9
Jailorinummqasr said:
If you look at the model they use, the significant rise (into the Top 10) for Pakistan is as a result of the Earthquake, which lead to a significant increase in the numbers internally displaced persons. I suspect that next year they will drop down along way.

It is a faily broad measure of internal stresses which perhaps does not truely indicate (on an annual basis) the risks of other failed states developing but yr-on-yr it has the potentail to be a good I & W of states that are failing.

The system they use is interesting, it factors in wealth differentials, group (ethinic and social) conflicts/resentment and demographic pressures. If our or the US economy faltered I would expect to see our rankings increase significantly.
Excuse me,

Pakistan is not there because of the earthquake but because of internal problems in NWFP, Balochistan & Sindh. These problems have been there even before Pakistan existed.

Don't expect them to just go away, of course unless the Jinn believers decide to use the army to stiffle out the resistance.
 
#10
Gautam said:
Jailorinummqasr said:
If you look at the model they use, the significant rise (into the Top 10) for Pakistan is as a result of the Earthquake, which lead to a significant increase in the numbers internally displaced persons. I suspect that next year they will drop down along way.

It is a faily broad measure of internal stresses which perhaps does not truely indicate (on an annual basis) the risks of other failed states developing but yr-on-yr it has the potentail to be a good I & W of states that are failing.

The system they use is interesting, it factors in wealth differentials, group (ethinic and social) conflicts/resentment and demographic pressures. If our or the US economy faltered I would expect to see our rankings increase significantly.
Excuse me,

Pakistan is not there because of the earthquake but because of internal problems in NWFP, Balochistan & Sindh. These problems have been there even before Pakistan existed.

Don't expect them to just go away, of course unless the Jinn believers decide to use the army to stiffle out the resistance.
Gautam,

Might I suggest you read the link and study the figures that are used to calculate the results before you tell me why Pakistan in at number 9. Fundamentally there are 12 determinates most of which do not directly relate to civil disorder.

I am not arguing that Pakistan does not have major problems but fundamentally the political/military situation has not deteriated that much in one year, to SOLEY account for the signifcant rise. I have not stated that Pakistan would return to the previous rating but that in a years time it would drop a number of places.
 
#11
Jailorinummqasr said:
Gautam said:
Jailorinummqasr said:
If you look at the model they use, the significant rise (into the Top 10) for Pakistan is as a result of the Earthquake, which lead to a significant increase in the numbers internally displaced persons. I suspect that next year they will drop down along way.

It is a faily broad measure of internal stresses which perhaps does not truely indicate (on an annual basis) the risks of other failed states developing but yr-on-yr it has the potentail to be a good I & W of states that are failing.

The system they use is interesting, it factors in wealth differentials, group (ethinic and social) conflicts/resentment and demographic pressures. If our or the US economy faltered I would expect to see our rankings increase significantly.
Excuse me,

Pakistan is not there because of the earthquake but because of internal problems in NWFP, Balochistan & Sindh. These problems have been there even before Pakistan existed.

Don't expect them to just go away, of course unless the Jinn believers decide to use the army to stiffle out the resistance.
Gautam,

Might I suggest you read the link and study the figures that are used to calculate the results before you tell me why Pakistan in at number 9. Fundamentally there are 12 determinates most of which do not directly relate to civil disorder.

I am not arguing that Pakistan does not have major problems but fundamentally the political/military situation has not deteriated that much in one year, to SOLEY account for the signifcant rise. I have not stated that Pakistan would return to the previous rating but that in a years time it would drop a number of places.
This sounds more like academic talk.

Pretty similar to David Ricardo, who spent his life talking about Corn Law's only to discard them completely @ his death bed.

Pakistan has faced problems in NWFP, Sind & Balochistan for decades. In fact the troubles in NWFP were there before Pakistan was born.

Leader of Pathans in 1947 on an AICC meeting when the final demarcations for Pakistan were to be drawn up remarked- One of the Khan brothers (Ghaffar Khan) one of India's freedom fighters had expressed his bitterness & betrayal he felt by Gandhi for having handed over Pathans to Jinnah (Leader of Pakistan), for they were overwhelmingly against a sep muslim state.

Pakistan has had problems with Balochis who have wanted a bigger share of natural resources which the cent govt has denied, rightly so.
NWFP pathan's have resented them being bundled with Pakistan since 47, hence PA govt has resorted to using army @ numerous occassions.

Above all Pakistan lacks a clear line of succession, their is a huge void post-musharaff. ISI has long waited for this situation to occur & it is fastly approaching that point.
 
#12
Gautam said:
Jailorinummqasr said:
Gautam said:
Jailorinummqasr said:
If you look at the model they use, the significant rise (into the Top 10) for Pakistan is as a result of the Earthquake, which lead to a significant increase in the numbers internally displaced persons. I suspect that next year they will drop down along way.

It is a faily broad measure of internal stresses which perhaps does not truely indicate (on an annual basis) the risks of other failed states developing but yr-on-yr it has the potentail to be a good I & W of states that are failing.

The system they use is interesting, it factors in wealth differentials, group (ethinic and social) conflicts/resentment and demographic pressures. If our or the US economy faltered I would expect to see our rankings increase significantly.
Excuse me,

Pakistan is not there because of the earthquake but because of internal problems in NWFP, Balochistan & Sindh. These problems have been there even before Pakistan existed.

Don't expect them to just go away, of course unless the Jinn believers decide to use the army to stiffle out the resistance.
Gautam,

Might I suggest you read the link and study the figures that are used to calculate the results before you tell me why Pakistan in at number 9. Fundamentally there are 12 determinates most of which do not directly relate to civil disorder.

I am not arguing that Pakistan does not have major problems but fundamentally the political/military situation has not deteriated that much in one year, to SOLEY account for the signifcant rise. I have not stated that Pakistan would return to the previous rating but that in a years time it would drop a number of places.
This sounds more like academic talk.

Pretty similar to David Ricardo, who spent his life talking about Corn Law's only to discard them completely @ his death bed.

Pakistan has faced problems in NWFP, Sind & Balochistan for decades. In fact the troubles in NWFP were there before Pakistan was born.

Leader of Pathans in 1947 on an AICC meeting when the final demarcations for Pakistan were to be drawn up remarked- One of the Khan brothers (Ghaffar Khan) one of India's freedom fighters had expressed his bitterness & betrayal he felt by Gandhi for having handed over Pathans to Jinnah (Leader of Pakistan), for they were overwhelmingly against a sep muslim state.

Pakistan has had problems with Balochis who have wanted a bigger share of natural resources which the cent govt has denied, rightly so.
NWFP pathan's have resented them being bundled with Pakistan since 47, hence PA govt has resorted to using army @ numerous occassions.

Above all Pakistan lacks a clear line of succession, their is a huge void post-musharaff. ISI has long waited for this situation to occur & it is fastly approaching that point.
Look, I think we all understand the tensions between India and Pakistan and most of us even know the history, but it's probably not too helpful to allow what sounds a bit like prejudice into a reasoned discussion.

Pakistan has internal problems, sure - quite significant ones in Bal(u)chistan and Waziristan - but it entirely lacks a couple of the characteristics of a failed state, most notably it has an efficient and on balance pretty secular military with good cohesion and a long and well-regarded tradition, even acknowledging those elements of the tradition it shares with its large and democratic neighbour. Musharraf is the President, albeit having taken a fairly radically undemocratic route to that role and it wouldn't surprise me to see an election in the next few years and another crack at a civilian government.

India, too, has a number of low-level grumbling insurgencies running at any one time and some pretty interesting stuff happening between communities in, say, Mumbai.

Would I want to live in Pakistan? No, of course not. Not that nice a place for a Westerner at the moment, but by no means a failed state. They've made a pretty good job under the circumstances of recovering from the earthquake and actually running rather a tight ship, all things considered.
 
#13
Glad_its_all_over said:
Gautam said:
Jailorinummqasr said:
Gautam said:
Jailorinummqasr said:
If you look at the model they use, the significant rise (into the Top 10) for Pakistan is as a result of the Earthquake, which lead to a significant increase in the numbers internally displaced persons. I suspect that next year they will drop down along way.

It is a faily broad measure of internal stresses which perhaps does not truely indicate (on an annual basis) the risks of other failed states developing but yr-on-yr it has the potentail to be a good I & W of states that are failing.

The system they use is interesting, it factors in wealth differentials, group (ethinic and social) conflicts/resentment and demographic pressures. If our or the US economy faltered I would expect to see our rankings increase significantly.
Excuse me,

Pakistan is not there because of the earthquake but because of internal problems in NWFP, Balochistan & Sindh. These problems have been there even before Pakistan existed.

Don't expect them to just go away, of course unless the Jinn believers decide to use the army to stiffle out the resistance.
Gautam,

Might I suggest you read the link and study the figures that are used to calculate the results before you tell me why Pakistan in at number 9. Fundamentally there are 12 determinates most of which do not directly relate to civil disorder.

I am not arguing that Pakistan does not have major problems but fundamentally the political/military situation has not deteriated that much in one year, to SOLEY account for the signifcant rise. I have not stated that Pakistan would return to the previous rating but that in a years time it would drop a number of places.
This sounds more like academic talk.

Pretty similar to David Ricardo, who spent his life talking about Corn Law's only to discard them completely @ his death bed.

Pakistan has faced problems in NWFP, Sind & Balochistan for decades. In fact the troubles in NWFP were there before Pakistan was born.

Leader of Pathans in 1947 on an AICC meeting when the final demarcations for Pakistan were to be drawn up remarked- One of the Khan brothers (Ghaffar Khan) one of India's freedom fighters had expressed his bitterness & betrayal he felt by Gandhi for having handed over Pathans to Jinnah (Leader of Pakistan), for they were overwhelmingly against a sep muslim state.

Pakistan has had problems with Balochis who have wanted a bigger share of natural resources which the cent govt has denied, rightly so.
NWFP pathan's have resented them being bundled with Pakistan since 47, hence PA govt has resorted to using army @ numerous occassions.

Above all Pakistan lacks a clear line of succession, their is a huge void post-musharaff. ISI has long waited for this situation to occur & it is fastly approaching that point.
Look, I think we all understand the tensions between India and Pakistan and most of us even know the history, but it's probably not too helpful to allow what sounds a bit like prejudice into a reasoned discussion.

Pakistan has internal problems, sure - quite significant ones in Bal(u)chistan and Waziristan - but it entirely lacks a couple of the characteristics of a failed state, most notably it has an efficient and on balance pretty secular military with good cohesion and a long and well-regarded tradition, even acknowledging those elements of the tradition it shares with its large and democratic neighbour. Musharraf is the President, albeit having taken a fairly radically undemocratic route to that role and it wouldn't surprise me to see an election in the next few years and another crack at a civilian government.

India, too, has a number of low-level grumbling insurgencies running at any one time and some pretty interesting stuff happening between communities in, say, Mumbai.

Would I want to live in Pakistan? No, of course not. Not that nice a place for a Westerner at the moment, but by no means a failed state. They've made a pretty good job under the circumstances of recovering from the earthquake and actually running rather a tight ship, all things considered.
Dear Glad_its_all_over,

Let me firstly make one thing clear. I am not here to diss or pick up a fight with Pakistani's because I am members of other forums where there are plenty more Pakistani's on disposal to pick up a fight with.
I merely gave my observations on what I saw was a distorted view in the west.

The differences in the problems that India & Pakistan face are totally different.

For starters problems in Balochistan & Wazirstan have their origins even before Pakistan came into existance. I have shed some light on that in my post above.
One can dwell more by reading a book called "The Price of Partition" by Rafiq Zakaria.

The problems you refer to in India's case are pretty diff in nature. Let us start with Punjab (SIKHS) it was a phase of a decade and a half when militancy picked up.
This problem arose not because the Sikhs were unhappy of having being huddled together with India but because the Congress govt under Indira Gandhi tried to play politics in Punjab and ended up creating Frankestien's monster in the form of "Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale". By the time they realised how grave the situation was, things had gone beyond a point.

Problems in North Eastern States have a diff nature altogether. Problems in states like Assam, Tripura, Nagaland have 2 main contributing factors.

Firstly China has actively sponsered these Maoist groups so as to maintain its edge in South East Asia & this also gives it somewhat influence. This policy has been pursued since early 70s.

Secondly, since the formation of Bangladesh, India has had a huge influx of illegal immigrants from Bangladesh. Since these people can easily mix, they have poured into states bordering Bangladesh which are these NortH Eastern STates..
In states like Tripura indigenous poeple have themselves become minorities.

Hence economic & social issues have led to problems in these areas.
Anyone with even basic grasp of knowledge of South East Asian Affairs can make out that the problmes faced by India & Pakistan are on opp ends of a scale. Hence Pakistan's ranking of 9th.

I think one is being very shortsighted in context to Musharaf. He has already survived 2 assasination attempts. Further he is yet to identify a clear line of succession. His attempts to reintroduce democracy have been a complete mess as religious parties have made a forray into the parliament.

Further two main leaders Bhutto & Sharif are in exile. If Musharaff was to die tomm, there would be huge reprucisions for Pakistan.

Military is secular, well that's still debatable while Shia & Sunni's pop each other's head. I will bypass that for now. Pakistan's army is famous but one forgets that it is the army itself with ISI that has led Pakistan to the mess it is in today.

You might not be aware but most of Pakistan's institutions be govt or pvt have somewhat of a common factor. They all seem to have one or the other high ranking military personnel either on their boards. Their have been a number of articles recently in the press but they are beyond the scope of this discussion.

Mumbai :roll: I think you are caught in a time warp. Last times troubles flared in Mumbai was in 1992 when Babri Masjid was demolished. Mumbai has been at peace since then. Its places like Gujarat that have been in news.

Fact is that Pakistan stands on edge of a very crucial point. Balochi's are increasingly turning violent with problems in Sindh & NWFP. Question remains is that will Pakistan resort to force to quell these disturbances or will it engage them through other modes.

Whatever the decision of Pakistan, untill they can modify their political structure, reintroduce democracy & engage these renegade states mainly Balochistan, it will find itself in shadows of failed states.
 
#14
Gautam said:
This sounds more like academic talk.
Look, I also do not want to pick a fight over India and Pakistan BUT when it come to the use and abuse of statistics then I will start to dig in. My comments may be purely academic but fundamentally it was ACADEMIC rersearch that complied the table. I am confident that Pakistan will not be in the top 10 next year unless Mussaraf is dead.

It is interesting how statistics can be abused, one of GWB stats to support his Social Security reform was that since Blacks (as a group) have a lower life expectancy they will do well from the reforms. (as the longer you live the less the reforms offer you). BUT when you dig deeper those blacks (Men and Women who reach retirement age they live marginally longer than their white counterparts.

The differnece is that the Black childern in the US have a higher infant mortality rate and also that many black men die young as result of crime. Thus skewing the figures.

Therefore, sensible reasoned ANALYSIS of statistics is vital to understanding their significance or otherwise.
 
#15
Jailorinummqasr said:
Gautam said:
This sounds more like academic talk.
Look, I also do not want to pick a fight over India and Pakistan BUT when it come to the use and abuse of statistics then I will start to dig in. My comments may be purely academic but fundamentally it was ACADEMIC rersearch that complied the table. I am confident that Pakistan will not be in the top 10 next year unless Mussaraf is dead.

It is interesting how statistics can be abused, one of GWB stats to support his Social Security reform was that since Blacks (as a group) have a lower life expectancy they will do well from the reforms. (as the longer you live the less the reforms offer you). BUT when you dig deeper those blacks (Men and Women who reach retirement age they live marginally longer than their white counterparts.

The differnece is that the Black childern in the US have a higher infant mortality rate and also that many black men die young as result of crime. Thus skewing the figures.

Therefore, sensible reasoned ANALYSIS of statistics is vital to understanding their significance or otherwise.
I don't think so you are even aware of the basic problems faced by Pakistan.

In news during the 7th of July London bombings, the numerous madrassas in Pakistan have created enough disturbances for Pakistan.

Such was the pressure that post 7th of July, Musharaff banned all international students from attending any madrassas in Pakistan. This was a clear cut acknowledgment on his part that their was something seriously flawed with these madrassas and hence such a stern step.

Pakistan has also been in limbo lately because a lot of rural areas are reverting to the use of Sharia, while Musharaff from Islamabad wishes to implement the common law of land. This is yet another focal point of tensions between the army & rural Pakistanis.

I pretty much doubt you have any ideas of problems that are brewing under the surface of Pakistan.

I have for last 8 years since Kargil Conflict paid close attention to Pakistan. This is not news articles I am quoting you from but from detailed papers published on sites like saag, SATP & NBER (national buereau of economic research).

Your words & language remind me that of Nasir Abbas, Head of BBC's South East Asia division & BBCURDU.com who recently said "Pakistan lives in a state of denial, It cannot decide whether to sponser Jihad in Kashmir or focus on economic progression. While India races ahead @ 8% growth PA, Pakistan can't even decide on a future line of succession".

Nasir Abbas was born in Pakistan, (karachi) worked for Dawn newspaper before moving to the UK
 
#16
Is it just me or is this thread a beat up against Pakistan by Indian posters. The first three posts, all close to each other were by posters, Pranith, Gautam and Maximus AG, all of which I'm guessing are Indian. Not very subtle boys.
 
#17
Oh dear they are not taking it well.

Pakistan is a mess, partition was a disaster. Far bigger risk to world security than those nasty chaps in Tehran, who ranked 52nd well ahead, Egypt at 31st.

The Pakistani military is plain nuts (sample) has genocidal tendencies and nuclear weapons. The Yanks should have let the Indians finish them off in the 70s after they killed a million or so Bengalis, rather faster than the Waffen SS at that sort of work.

That Afghanistan is only just below them at 10th in the rankings has a great deal to do with the hard work of the ISI supporting the Taliban, Bin Laden and old skool acid throwing loons like Gulbadin Hekmatyar.

Hell but look on the bright side Iraq may be worse than Zimbabwee but it is not yet Congo. Not Yet.

 
#19
Birdie_Numnums said:
Is it just me or is this thread a beat up against Pakistan by Indian posters. The first three posts, all close to each other were by posters, Pranith, Gautam and Maximus AG, all of which I'm guessing are Indian. Not very subtle boys.
Why are u highlighting the fact that you have no grasp of SE affairs.

Far from bashing, this was a very correct assessment based on facts. Do I smell a Pakistani sympathiser here


Well wouldn't make much diff because ur inability to come up with a proper rebuttal speaks for itself.

Very easy to accuse three posters of being India but still doesn't change the facts I have just put down.

May be u could do better next time by coming up with either failings in my arguements or facts which support you otherwise.

Ignorance is ok but only upto a certain extent.
 
#20
Gautam said:
Birdie_Numnums said:
Is it just me or is this thread a beat up against Pakistan by Indian posters. The first three posts, all close to each other were by posters, Pranith, Gautam and Maximus AG, all of which I'm guessing are Indian. Not very subtle boys.
Why are u highlighting the fact that you have no grasp of SE affairs.

Far from bashing, this was a very correct assessment based on facts. Do I smell a Pakistani sympathiser here

Ignorance is ok but only upto a certain extent.
Gautam, I assume you are a student, I hope you are aware that this website is predominately used by (ex)-servicemen and there families.

A number of your comments are childish and after only 10 posts you are already behaving like a Troll. I think you will find many of us do have good working knowledge of the SA Asian affairs . Further, you clearly have no idea whether either I or Birdie are Pakistani sympathisers - and yet you are already making accusations.

In my book there is one thing worse that ignorance and that being bigoted. I would suggest that you go back to the SU bar and have a pint, chill and then come back and join this forum and discuss other issues and read other threads, so that you get a feel for what other contributers’ general views are.

I am sure you are proud to be Indian, might I suggest that you act as a better ambassador for your 'Nation'.

As for my knowledge of Pakistan, I'm aware of most of issues you highlight. If you bother to read the Op Persian Freedom thread you will see that I have constantly indicated that Pakistan is a greater threat than Iran.

But since you raise the issue, if you were in Musharaf's shoes how would you counter the rise in hard-line Islam thinking and sharia law developing in the rural areas.

My guess is that beyond keeping the balance power between the ISI/Army and Religious elms in the country there not much more he can do. Corruption in endemic, as is poverty, he is seeking investment from Iran and China (which is contributing to the problems he has in Baculistan, and he is likely to risking criticism from the USA for dealing with China and Iran.

Also as an Indian do you really think that India wants to yet another 'failed state' next door. India must be getting worried.....Marxists in Nepal, its own problems with the Naxalites in AP, Assam etc etc, Islamic Fundamentalist movements in Pakistan, Bangladesh, Afghanistan. Nuclear neighbours to the North and West and a dependence on Oil to sustain it is growth rate. Even the BJP can see pushing Musharaf to much is not good for India.

Not forgetting the Tigers down south, I think Ghandi (son of) learned a lesson a few years back. :wink:
 

New Posts

Top