'Failed state is' contrived, not real

He mentioned Bangladesh, albeit subtly. Was he trying to tell the readers that Bangladesh is a failed state? It was not clear to me if he did or did not, although I could sense he was hinting at Bangladesh as a failed state. The concept of a failed state is, as we all know, a New phenomenon in international relations. It gained momentum after 9/11 when we heard from the world's only super power, the United States, a list of such states.

The concept is very fluid and there is no reason to quote the British Foreign Secretary's definition to describe such a state, knowing how he lied in leading his country to war against Iraq based on such a concept. The definition coming from the US administration about failed states has also been very subjective and goal-oriented, and we should think twice before accepting their definition too.

From my understanding of world history, there are two examples of failed states in living memory. One is Afghanistan and the other Somalia. Ironically, both failed more as a result of external intervention, most notable by the United States. So we should be wary about what these powers have to say about failed states, for their definition is not consistent with and changes with change of their interests.

Let me also comment on the other aspect of the piece that deals with the impact of failed states on world peace and security. The world is not really that much in a flux as the west wants us to perceive. Come to think of it; less than 3000 people were killed as a result of 9/11 and the chances of that happening ever again is indeed very remote.

Terrorists in greater numbers were killing people before 9/11 but when such lives were being lost before 9/11, the US was asking countries suffering acts of terrorism to deal with such matters "politically". In many cases, the USA strengthened the hands of those carrying the acts of terrorism. But with 3000 US lives gone on 9/11, all has changed. To take revenge, the US must have killed many times more Afghans whose lives do not, it seems, count. While discussing failed states, we should keep this in mind.

We should not fall into the trap of the invention of this "failed states" concept which was invented by the West to justify their domination of weaker nations challenging their hegemony. The pre-emptive strikes, though an old strategy, is a corollary to that failed state justification.

Countries, historically, go through the process of internal turmoil, poor leadership, chaos, and bad governance. Most countries come out of it clean. By linking such countries as those harbouring terrorists, the west will get the blank cheque to interfere anywhere and everywhere based on their self-interest. They will interfere in a country like Iraq while leaving a nuclear country, like North Korea, untouched due to fear of retaliation. The connection between failed states and terrorism is, as we have seen in Iraq, a lie. States don't fail, they pass through transformation and upheaval due to foreign interference.

It is therefore very important for those who like Mr. Masud write columns and build opinions to be very cautious of terms such as failed states, pre-emptive strikes, etc.