| Related Links: | Articles on Guyana and the Wider World |
| Letters Menu | Archival Menu |
Boundary disputes
Another widely held explanation for the emergence of ‘failed states’ is boundary disputes, frequently linked also to that of ‘exploitive colonialism.’ The point is made that all too frequently national boundaries, particularly those drawn as a result of European colonisation, have been ‘disruptive,’ thereby provoking inter-state conflicts. These conflicts invariably weaken one or more of the parties to them; not only in material ways but also through their undermining of social cohesion and the impediments they pose to the development of a nationalist outlook in the more recent independent states. Indeed such an environment can lead to the dramatic collapse of states, entailing in the process massive population shifts, widespread death and destruction, economic collapse, famine and destitution, and the palpable inability of the state to provide security for its citizens and to control lawlessness and disorder. There are of course other instances where the consequences are not so dramatic, and these boundary disputes constitute a steady haemorrhaging of state and society.
Cold War
According to the literature the consequences of the Cold War constitute a third root cause of ‘failed states.’ The argument is that during the Cold War smaller and weaker states were used as pawns by the superpowers in their struggles for global hegemony. Because of the strategic/ideological considerations in this rivalry it was easy for the importance of such states to be bloated beyond what reality would have warranted. With the end of the World War and the withdrawal of their respective superpower patrons, however, several of these rapidly collapsed under the weight of their poverty, incapacity, lack of social cohesion and poor leadership. Of note, the emphasis on political-military issues in the Cold War led to the super-power support of these states being crystallized more often than not in the provision of military hardware and security backing against existing and potential foes.
This aspect of the Cold War was so important in generating failed states that some theorists argue the continued presence of these huge arms deliveries in recently independent post-colonial states has operated as an independent factor in the emergence of failed states. Here the claim is made that, when the social compact between the governed and the governing breaks down, the availability of these arms leads quickly to the arming of the contestants for the existing state power. Military conflict therefore readily ensues and more often than not with horrendous loss of life.
Small arms, light weapons and ‘failed states’
Particular attention is often paid in the literature to an important element of these Cold War arms, which is the ‘small arms and light weapons’ category. In the literature, the United Nations definitions are used for this category. Thus ‘small arms’ refer to revolvers and self-loading pistols, rifles and carbines, sub-machine guns, assault rifles and light machine guns. ‘Light weapons’ refer to heavy machine guns; hand-held under-barrel and mounted grenade launchers; portable anti-aircraft guns, anti-tank guns and anti-aircraft missile systems; recoilless rifles; and, mortars less than 100 mm. I have detailed these definitions so that readers may gauge for themselves their significance in Guyana, based on the reported weaponry used and found in recent conflicts.
During the Cold War and after, the provision of these armaments has continued to be a major slice of international assistance and global trade. At a recent Conference on Failed States and International Security (1999) Stohl and Smith noted that: “conspicuously absent from the array of new threats to individual, national, and international security is a major weapons category that our leaders rarely mention - small arms and light weapons.” They went on to make the telling observation that these are: “perhaps the most deadly of all weapons, because they are so insidious.”
These writers argue that such weapons are deadly, and when they are in the hands of even a relatively small group of persons they can provoke major state-threatening conflicts, at times leading to state collapse. Because these weapons are portable and light, they are easily smuggled and transported. Moreover, trade in them is highly profitable, as very often these weapons had been received as ‘aid’ and are now being re-cycled around the globe for profit.
Although the availability of ‘small arms’ and ‘light weapons’ may operate as determining factors in the emergence of failed states, by themselves these do not automatically produce the conflict that leads to the failing state. Underlying the conflict is still in one way or another the breakdown of the ‘social compact between governed and governing.’
It is therefore the absence of democracy and political legitimacy that creates the environment for these weapons to come into play, and without that environment, the outcomes need not be the failing state.