World News Story

08 January 2009 23:11 BST

A small world

There was once a time when rich countries could stick their heads in the sand. Now, as Paddy Ashdown says, "everything is connected to everything".

It's a sea change perfectly summed up by the former UN high representative to Bosnia and Herzegovina, made within the resplendent surroundings of the Royal Society building in London.

Old society presidents beam down from portraits on the walls; traffic rushes by in the cold morning fog outside. It's easy to imagine this world completely cut off from the rest of the planet.

But, as Lord Ashdown points out so clearly, to assume so would be to commit a grave error. Only a few years have passed since terrorism bred far away in the mountains of Waziristan wreaked havoc on the capital's transport system; only a few hours since a Briton died in coordinated terrorist activity in Mumbai.

"Everything is connected to everything." Ashdown's law, as he sums up in this simple phrase, perfectly sums up the world's increasing interdependence.

That's why the Institute for Public Policy Research's commission on national security, which he co-chairs, covered such a broad range of issues in its interim report.

Biosecurity, nuclear proliferation, pandemics, transnational crime: the breadth of the report reflects the growing dangers of today's globalised society.

The number of independent states has increased from 55 to over 200 in the last 95 years.

Africa's decolonisation and the collapse of the Soviet Union have created most of the new countries, but this historical process has left an unfortunate legacy.

A worryingly large number of states are struggling to provide security for their citizens – and endangering the security of the rest of the world as a result.

IPPR's commission identifies 27 of what it describes as 'swing states' – those suffering from multiple stress points which threaten to turn them from weak states into failing or failed ones.

Resource scarcity, recent conflict and widespread violations of human rights are just some of the factors which can make a country a swing state.

The net result, according to IPPR, is that 880 million people are living in the countries around the world which fall into this risk category.

The usual suspects are of course there: Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan all make the top ten.

But the vast majority – 19 of the 27 – are to be found in sub-Saharan Africa, a region rife with many of the key problems identified by IPPR.

It certainly generates many of inthenews.co.uk's world news headlines. Crises in countries like Zimbabwe, Sudan and the Democratic Republic of Congo have held the world's attention for years.

A closer look at the region's problems goes some way to explaining why it faces such difficulties. At the heart of the problem lies the decolonisation process, which failed to take into account complex local tribal allegiances.

Nigel Inkster of the International Institute for Strategic Studies says the "burden of tribal and ethnic rivalries" needs taking seriously.

"You've got a lot of states in sub-Saharan Africa which are really artificial creations – lines on a map – in circumstances where the populations concerned have had little time to develop either the sense of statehood, much less the institutions of statehood," he explained.

"The foundations are in many cases very fragile and you have in the borders of one country a lot of peoples– with very different, often quite long traditions of hostility."

This sets the framework in which tensions caused by chronic economic underdevelopment can simmer, Mr Inkster believes. And though a new generation of African leaders is emerging which is committed to putting this problem right, the inequalities are deep-seated and continue to affect millions.

Sub-Saharan Africa, unfortunately for the west, retains strong anti-colonial urges which limits the impact many developed nations can have.

Direct intervention becomes virtually unthinkable in countries like Zimbabwe, Mr Inkster believes, because such an action would see "everybody on the continent jostling with each other to line up and condemn it".

Sanctions are ineffective, while the UN relies on the backing of countries like China and Russia which for their own reasons are reluctant to countenance much meddling in other countries' internal affairs.

Which all goes to reflect an uncomfortable fundamental truth for the region: that western countries can only hope to exercise influence if they are do so in concert with other key stakeholders like China.

This is frustrating, because China doesn't have the same qualms about dealing with countries like Sudan or DRC which the west does. It plays by the rules in countries which have them – and where there aren't any they "get stuck in and do what they can", Mr Inkster says.

Such disunity among non-African players in the region is partly to blame for the huge increase in arms which has fuelled its conflicts in recent decades. A cattle-raider with a Kalashnikov can do a lot more damage than one with just a spear, after all.

The combination of all of the above creates an unfortunate mixture – and in the worst cases creates exactly the kind of lawless spaces Lord Ashdown fears will develop.

Some, like Somalia, are already in existence. It has lacked any kind of meaningful central government since 1991. As a result its Puntland coast now shelters the pirates currently menacing international shipping in the Gulf of Aden and around the Horn of Africa.

There is no one to prevent the Eyl ex-fishermen preying on vulnerable vessels working their way through one of the world's busiest shipping lanes. According to a Chatham House report published last week the situation could get worse, showing how even at the single-state level the stakes remain high for the world.

The report focuses on Yemen, the Middle East's only democracy. That unique selling point is in severe danger at present, as the report's author Ginny Hill makes clear.

It is the poorest state in the Arab world, with dwindling water resources, high unemployment and rapid population growth, she says.

Jihadist networks are on the rise, thriving in the intermittent civil war of the north and a southern separatist campaign.

The upshot of these problems could be devastating for the entire world.

"Future instability in Yemen could expand a lawless zone stretching from northern
Kenya, through Somalia and the Gulf of Aden, to Saudi Arabia," Ms Hill writes in the report's abstract.

"Piracy, organised crime and violent jihad would escalate, with implications for the security of shipping routes, the transit of oil through the Suez Canal and the internal security of Yemen's neighbours."

Yemen might not be the most high-profile of danger countries – but these unwanted consequences show the dangers of allowing the 'swing states', in sub-Saharan Africa or elsewhere, to spiral out of control.

IPPR's security commission says these countries must not be allowed to deteriorate further.

It hopes keeping them out of conflict would prove an "immense contribution to international peace, stability and prosperity".

This is a laudable ambition. But if the international community succeeds only partially it will have done better than many fear.

Alex Stevenson