Failed States

Failed States Plot Summary

Introduction

The concept of a "failed state" traditionally refers to nations unable to provide basic security, governance, and services to their citizens. However, this analysis turns the lens inward, examining how the world's most powerful nation exhibits characteristics of state failure despite its military and economic might. Through meticulous documentation and logical analysis, the argument unfolds that democratic institutions are systematically undermined when powerful states exempt themselves from the very principles they claim to champion internationally. At the heart of this examination lies a fundamental contradiction: the gap between democratic rhetoric and policy implementation. By tracing patterns across administrations and policy domains, we see how national security justifications, corporate influence, and institutional momentum create a democratic deficit that threatens both domestic governance and international stability. The implications extend beyond political theory to existential concerns about nuclear proliferation, environmental sustainability, and the future of democratic governance in an increasingly interconnected world.

Chapter 1: The Paradox of Failed Statehood in America

The concept of a "failed state" typically conjures images of collapsed governments in distant, troubled regions. Yet a compelling case can be made that the United States itself exhibits key characteristics of failed statehood. These include an inability or unwillingness to protect citizens from violence, a tendency to consider oneself beyond the reach of domestic or international law, and a significant "democratic deficit" that hollows out formal democratic institutions. Three pressing threats to human welfare and rights demand urgent attention: nuclear war, environmental disaster, and the actions of the world's leading power that increase the likelihood of these catastrophes. The post-9/11 era has witnessed an acceleration of these tendencies, with the assertion of a doctrine of "anticipatory self-defense" that effectively claims the right to wage war at will. This doctrine, combined with systematic disregard for international law and treaties, represents a dangerous evolution in American foreign policy. The transformation has not occurred overnight but represents the culmination of long-developing trends. The response to terrorism has often prioritized military action over security measures that might actually protect citizens. Resources that could address genuine security concerns have instead been diverted to corporate interests and tax cuts for the wealthy, while basic infrastructure protections against potential catastrophic terrorism remain neglected. Perhaps most troubling is how these shifts have occurred with minimal democratic input. Polls consistently show the American public largely opposes preemptive war and supports international cooperation, yet policy continues to move in the opposite direction. This democratic deficit, coupled with policies that increase rather than decrease threats to citizens, epitomizes the failed state characteristics identified in this analysis. The paradox becomes evident when examining how a nation with unprecedented military and economic power can simultaneously fail in its most basic responsibilities to its citizens. This failure manifests not in the traditional collapse of governmental authority but in the systematic prioritization of special interests over public welfare and security. The resulting governance structure maintains the appearance of democracy while increasingly functioning to serve narrow economic and political interests.

Chapter 2: Self-Exemption from International Law and Norms

The principle of self-exemption from international law forms a cornerstone of American foreign policy. This approach manifests in the systematic rejection of international treaties, courts, and norms whenever they might constrain American action, while simultaneously demanding strict compliance from other nations. The resulting double standard undermines the entire framework of international law. The Nuremberg principles established after World War II explicitly rejected the notion that government officials, including heads of state, are exempt from responsibility for international crimes. Yet the United States has increasingly positioned itself as beyond these standards. In 2002, White House counsel Alberto Gonzales advised President Bush to effectively rescind the Geneva Conventions, describing them as "quaint" and "obsolete." This advice was motivated by the desire to reduce "the threat of domestic criminal prosecution under the War Crimes Act." Legal memoranda from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel articulated a narrow definition of torture that permitted "enhanced interrogation techniques." According to this definition, "acts must be of an extreme nature to rise to the level of torture," requiring pain "equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death." International law professor Jordan Paust described these legal maneuvers as unprecedented in American history, stating that "not since the Nazi era have so many lawyers been so clearly involved in international crimes." The pattern extends beyond torture to the broader realm of international law. The United States has rejected World Court jurisdiction when rulings go against American interests, withdrawn from treaties when they become inconvenient, and asserted that international law represents merely "political" rather than legal obligations. This stance was articulated by UN Ambassador John Bolton, who wrote that treaties are not "legal" obligations but merely "political" commitments that can be discarded when expedient. This self-exemption creates a fundamental contradiction: the United States demands that other nations adhere strictly to international law while claiming the right to disregard these same standards when they conflict with American interests. The resulting system undermines the very concept of the rule of law in international relations, replacing it with the principle that might makes right. This approach not only damages American credibility but erodes the foundations of the post-World War II international order designed to prevent aggressive warfare and protect human rights.

Chapter 3: Democracy Promotion: Rhetoric versus Reality

Democracy promotion has become a central justification for American foreign policy, particularly since the end of the Cold War. Officials frequently invoke the goal of spreading democracy as justification for military interventions and other foreign policy actions. However, examining the historical record reveals a stark contradiction between this rhetoric and actual policy implementation. When we look beyond official pronouncements to concrete actions, a consistent pattern emerges: democracy is supported only when it aligns with strategic and economic interests. This pattern was explicitly acknowledged by Thomas Carothers, a leading scholar of democracy promotion, who identified a "strong line of continuity" across administrations: "Where democracy appears to fit in well with US security and economic interests, the United States promotes democracy. Where democracy clashes with other significant interests, it is downplayed or even ignored." This contradiction becomes particularly evident in the Middle East. After the invasion of Iraq failed to uncover weapons of mass destruction, the Bush administration pivoted to emphasizing democratization as the primary justification. Yet this sudden conversion to democracy promotion came only after the collapse of the original pretext. The occupation authorities consistently worked to prevent elections, only reluctantly permitting them after massive nonviolent resistance and the insistence of Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, who mobilized huge demonstrations demanding direct elections. The gap between rhetoric and reality extends beyond Iraq. In Venezuela, the United States supported a military coup against the democratically elected government of Hugo Chávez in 2002, then turned to subversion after the coup failed due to popular resistance. In Palestine, the administration refused to recognize the democratically elected leadership of Yasser Arafat, instead demanding his replacement by officials more amenable to US and Israeli policies. When Hamas won parliamentary elections in 2006, the US and Israel moved quickly to punish Palestinians for their democratic choice. The historical record demonstrates that democracy promotion serves primarily as a strategic tool rather than a genuine commitment. This helps explain why, despite the passionate rhetoric about bringing democracy to the Middle East, the United States continues to support authoritarian regimes throughout the region when they serve American interests, while working to undermine democratically elected governments that challenge those interests.

Chapter 4: The Middle East: Case Study in Policy Contradictions

The Middle East provides particularly stark examples of the contradiction between rhetoric and reality in US foreign policy. After the invasion of Iraq, when weapons of mass destruction failed to materialize, the Bush administration shifted to emphasizing democratic transformation. Yet this narrative faced immediate credibility problems. A Gallup poll in Baghdad revealed that only 1 percent of Iraqis believed the United States invaded to bring democracy, while 5 percent thought the goal was "to assist the Iraqi people." Most assumed the invasion aimed to control Iraq's resources and reorganize the Middle East in US and Israeli interests. The case of Iran further illustrates these contradictions. The standard claim is that Iran has no need for nuclear power, so it must be pursuing a secret weapons program. Yet when the Shah ruled Iran from 1953 to 1979, the United States actively supported his nuclear program. Henry Kissinger, who as Secretary of State had declared that "introduction of nuclear power will both provide for the growing needs of Iran's economy," later reversed his position after the 1979 revolution, explaining simply that under the Shah, Iran "was an allied country" and therefore had a genuine need for nuclear energy. US policies have actually increased the likelihood that Iran would pursue nuclear weapons. As Israeli military historian Martin van Creveld observed, "Had the Iranians not tried to build nuclear weapons, they would be crazy," given the US invasion of Iraq "for, as it turned out, no reason at all." Washington has further instructed Iran on the need for a deterrent by strengthening Israeli offensive forces and sending deep-penetration bombs advertised as capable of striking Iran. The contradiction between democracy promotion rhetoric and actual policy is equally evident in US relations with Egypt. At the 1995 NPT review conference, Egypt and other Arab states agreed to unlimited extension of the treaty in exchange for attention to "Israel's anomalous status as a de facto nuclear weapons state." Within a few years, "the United States was insisting that the resolution was relevant only to the discussions in 1995 and refusing to address its implementation," a clear example of bad faith. Similar patterns emerge in US relations with Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and other authoritarian allies. While rhetorically committed to democracy promotion, the United States has consistently supported regimes that maintain stability and serve US strategic interests, regardless of their democratic credentials. The fundamental contradiction lies in the fact that genuine democracy might produce governments that pursue independent policies contrary to US interests.

Chapter 5: The Democratic Deficit: Domestic and International Dimensions

The disconnect between public opinion and government policy represents a profound democratic deficit within the United States. While a large majority of Americans believe that states should use force only if there is "strong evidence that the country is in imminent danger of being attacked," the bipartisan political consensus embraces a doctrine of "anticipatory self-defense" that permits preventive war. Similarly, by a 2-1 margin, the US population favors an Israel Accountability Act that would hold Israel accountable for human rights abuses in the occupied territories, yet no such legislation exists. This democratic deficit extends to environmental policy, where the American public strongly supports the Kyoto protocols while the government rejects them. A majority of Bush voters even mistakenly believed that the president supported the protocols. This pattern reveals how elections are "carefully designed" to produce a disconnect between public opinion and policy outcomes. The consequences of this democratic deficit are severe for both domestic and international security. After 9/11, the Bush administration's focus on Iraq diverted resources from genuine counterterrorism efforts. The 9/11 Commission repeatedly clashed with the administration, which had originally opposed its creation. Four years after the attacks, a review found that the administration had made "minimal" or "unsatisfactory" progress on eight of fourteen recommendations for overhauling the government to deal with terrorist threats. Particularly worrisome was the failure to secure nuclear material, which intelligence analysts consider essential to preventing nuclear terrorism. Robert McNamara, Kennedy's defense secretary, warned of "apocalypse soon," describing current US nuclear weapons policy as "immoral, illegal, militarily unnecessary, and dreadfully dangerous." He endorsed the judgment that there is "greater than 50 percent probability of a nuclear strike on US targets within a decade." The administration's priorities were further revealed by its handling of domestic security funding. In 2005, the Senate sharply cut funding for rail and mass transit security shortly before the London train bombings. The chemical industry and its "White House contacts" successfully blocked rules requiring security upgrades at chemical plants, despite warnings that an attack could "make 9/11 pale by comparison." These decisions suggest that corporate welfare takes precedence over protecting the population from terrorism.

Chapter 6: Existential Threats: Nuclear War and Environmental Catastrophe

Humanity faces two existential threats that require urgent attention: nuclear war and environmental catastrophe. The probability of nuclear apocalypse cannot be precisely calculated, but experts warn that the risk may be increasing. Former defense secretary Robert McNamara described current nuclear weapons policies as "immoral, illegal, militarily unnecessary, and dreadfully dangerous," warning of "apocalypse soon" if fundamental changes are not made. The risk of accidental nuclear war remains disturbingly high. Former senator Sam Nunn observes that we are "running an unnecessary risk of an Armageddon of our own making" due to policy choices that leave "America's survival" dependent on "the accuracy of Russia's warning systems." The Bush administration's aggressive militarism compelled Russia to expand its offensive capacities and to transfer nuclear weapons constantly across its vast territory, creating serious vulnerabilities. Nuclear security expert Bruce Blair warns that "transportation is the Achilles' heel of nuclear weapons security," with "many hundreds of Russian nuclear weapons moving around the countryside" daily. The theft of even one nuclear bomb "could spell eventual disaster for an American city." Environmental catastrophe represents an equally serious threat. In 2005, the scientific academies of all G8 nations, along with those of China, India, and Brazil, called for urgent action to address climate change. Yet the Bush administration removed language calling for prompt action from the G8 summit statement, insisting that "global warming is too uncertain a matter to justify anything more than voluntary measures." This position contradicted overwhelming scientific consensus and prioritized short-term economic interests over long-term human survival. The response to these existential threats reveals a fundamental failure of governance. Despite the gravity of these dangers, policy continues to be driven by short-term interests and ideological commitments rather than rational assessment of risks. The military-industrial complex pushes for continued nuclear modernization despite its dangers, while fossil fuel interests block meaningful action on climate change. These institutional forces operate largely outside democratic control, representing a profound governance failure. The concept of "state failure" takes on new meaning in this context. A state that cannot protect its citizens from the greatest threats to their survival—indeed, that pursues policies increasing these threats—has failed in its most basic responsibility. This failure occurs not because of lack of resources or capacity, but because governance structures have been captured by interests that prioritize short-term gains over long-term human welfare and even survival.

Chapter 7: Citizen Responsibility in Confronting State Power

Citizens in democratic societies bear a special responsibility to scrutinize and challenge the actions of their governments, particularly when those actions threaten human welfare and rights. This responsibility becomes even more urgent when confronting three pressing threats: nuclear war, environmental disaster, and the policies of the world's leading power that increase the likelihood of these catastrophes. The responsibility of citizens extends to challenging the doctrine of American exceptionalism. While the United States portrays itself as uniquely noble in its intentions, its actions often contradict this self-image. From supporting dictators to undermining democratic movements that threaten US interests, American foreign policy has frequently prioritized power and control over human rights and democracy. Citizens must recognize that their governments often operate on principles contrary to stated values. The invasion of Iraq, justified first by weapons of mass destruction and then by democracy promotion, actually increased terrorist threats and nuclear proliferation while devastating Iraqi society. The death toll associated with the invasion and occupation reached approximately 100,000 people by October 2004, according to a study in the Lancet medical journal. Citizens have a responsibility to question such policies and hold their governments accountable for the consequences of their actions. Meaningful democracy requires more than formal voting rights; it demands substantive citizen participation in decisions affecting their lives. This necessitates addressing concentrated economic power, media consolidation, and the military-industrial complex that currently constrain democratic possibilities. Only by recognizing these structural impediments to democracy can citizens begin developing alternatives that might address the existential challenges facing humanity. Ultimately, citizens must confront what Russell and Einstein called the "stark, dreadful, and inescapable" choice facing humanity: "shall we put an end to the human race; or shall mankind renounce war?" This challenge requires rejecting the self-exemption from moral principles and international law that characterizes failed states, and instead embracing universal standards that apply equally to all nations, especially the most powerful.

Summary

The analysis of state failure reveals a profound contradiction at the heart of contemporary governance: the world's most powerful nation exhibits key characteristics of failed statehood while demanding compliance with international norms from others. This contradiction manifests in the systematic self-exemption from international law, the gap between democratic rhetoric and policy implementation, and the prioritization of special interests over public welfare and security. The resulting democratic deficit threatens not only American democracy but global stability and human survival. Addressing these governance failures requires recognizing the structural forces that generate them. The military-industrial complex, corporate globalization, media consolidation, and the financialization of the economy have created powerful institutional interests that operate largely outside democratic control. Meaningful reform demands not just electoral changes but fundamental restructuring of economic and political power to restore substantive democracy. Only through such structural transformation can we hope to address the existential threats of nuclear catastrophe and environmental collapse that represent the ultimate consequences of state failure in the twenty-first century.

About Author

Loading...

Noam Chomsky

Avram Noam Chomsky is an American professor and public intellectual known for his work in linguistics, political activism, and social criticism. Sometimes called "the father of modern linguistics", Chomsky is also a major figure in analytic philosophy and one of the founders of the field of cognitive science. He is a laureate professor of linguistics at the University of Arizona and an institute professor emeritus at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). Among the most cited living authors, Chomsky has written more than 150 books on topics such as linguistics, war, and politics. In addition to his work in linguistics, since the 1960s Chomsky has been an influential voice on the American left as a consistent critic of U.S. foreign policy, contemporary capitalism, and corporate influence on political institutions and the media.Born to Ashkenazi Jewish immigrants in Philadelphia, Chomsky developed an early interest in anarchism from alternative bookstores in New York City. He studied at the University of Pennsylvania. During his postgraduate work in the Harvard Society of Fellows, Chomsky developed the theory of transformational grammar for which he earned his doctorate in 1955. That year he began teaching at MIT, and in 1957 emerged as a significant figure in linguistics with his landmark work Syntactic Structures, which played a major role in remodeling the study of language. From 1958 to 1959 Chomsky was a National Science Foundation fellow at the Institute for Advanced Study. He created or co-created the universal grammar theory, the generative grammar theory, the Chomsky hierarchy, and the minimalist program. Chomsky also played a pivotal role in the decline of linguistic behaviorism, and was particularly critical of the work of B.F. Skinner.An outspoken opponent of U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War, which he saw as an act of American imperialism, in 1967 Chomsky rose to national attention for his anti-war essay "The Responsibility of Intellectuals". Becoming associated with the New Left, he was arrested multiple times for his activism and placed on President Richard M. Nixon's list of political opponents. While expanding his work in linguistics over subsequent decades, he also became involved in the linguistics wars. In collaboration with Edward S. Herman, Chomsky later articulated the propaganda model of media criticism in Manufacturing Consent, and worked to expose the Indonesian occupation of East Timor. His defense of unconditional freedom of speech, including that of Holocaust denial, generated significant controversy in the Faurisson affair of the 1980s. Chomsky's commentary on the Cambodian genocide and the Bosnian genocide also generated controversy. Since retiring from active teaching at MIT, he has continued his vocal political activism, including opposing the 2003 invasion of Iraq and supporting the Occupy movement. An anti-Zionist, Chomsky considers Israel's treatment of Palestinians to be worse than South African–style apartheid, and criticizes U.S. support for Israel.Chomsky is widely recognized as having helped to spark the cognitive revolution in the human sciences, contributing to the development of a new cognitivistic framework for the study of language and the mind. Chomsky remains a leading critic of U.S. foreign policy, contemporary capitalism, U.S. involvement and Israel's role in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, and mass media. Chomsky and his ideas are highly influential in the anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist movements. Since 2017, he has been Agnese Helms Haury Chair in the Agnese Nelms Haury Program in Environment and Social Justice at the University of Arizona.

Read more

Related Books by Noam Chomsky

Loading...

Profit Over People

Noam Chomsky

Neoliberalism and Global Order

★★★★☆4.0

Loading...

Manufacturing Consent

Edward S. Herman

The Political Economy of the Mass Media

★★★★☆4.2