Foreign Policy magazine and the Center for American Progress polled 108 foreign affairs experts across the political spectrum about terrorism and related issues.
Asked what country is likely to be the next al Qaeda stronghold, the experts said:
- Pakistan — 35%
- Iraq — 22%
- Somalia — 11%
- Sudan — 8%
- Afghanistan — 7%
The experts also put Pakistan at the head of the list most likely to transfer nuclear technology to terrorists by 2012:
- Pakistan — 74%
- North Korea — 42%
- Russia — 38%
- Iran — 31%
- United States — 5%
The experts were divided about how to change US policy toward Pakistan: about a third favored sanctions against the country, and a similar number advocated increasing US aid.
Pakistan likely tops both lists both because of ideological forces at work within the country, and because it is regularly cited as one of the states most likely to fall apart.
The CSM reviews some of the ways North Korea is as much a fundamentalist theocracy as a communist dictatorship.
Spending on deification of the Kim family is increasing, to counter the scenario that “Koreans will discover the freedoms, glitter, and diversity of the modern outside world, and stop believing the story of idolatry they are awash in.”
Says North Korean expert Brian Myers in the article, “It isn’t quite realized [in the West] how much a threat the penetration of ideas means. They [Kim’s regime] see it as a social problem that could bring down the state.”
That danger may be increasing, as North Koreans are being exposed to a growing flow of “CDs and videos, South Korean radio, and cellphone signals from China, new styles and products, and new commercial habits.”
That would seem to hasten the day when North Koreans realize that they are not in fact being ruled by the “Guardian Deity of the Planet”and seek a change. In the wake of such a change, not only massive aid but some kind of cult deprogramming may be required.
The NYT / IHT reports four apparent trends in North Korea:
- The “government …. is progressively losing the paramount role it used to enjoy in society”.
- “The power of ideology appears to be waning.”
- “Information has begun to seep in from the outside world.”
- “The effects of money and corruption appear to have grown sharply in recent years, as market liberalization has allowed ordinary people to run small businesses.”
Together, these suggest that the probability of a rapid transition or implosion are increasing, as the cult that is North Korea loses its tight seal against the rest of the world.
Conservative commentator David Frum argues that the apparent nuclear weapon test attempt by North Korea demands that the US seek three goals:
- “enhance the security of those American allies most directly threatened by North Korean nuclear weapons: Japan and South Korea”
- “exact a price from North Korea for its nuclear program severe enough to frighten Iran and any other rogue regimes considering following the North Korean path”
- “punish China”
To achieve this, he advocates four policy initiatives:
- Speed up the development of missile defense systems.
- “End humanitarian aid to North Korea and pressure South Korea to do the same.”
- “Invite Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand and Singapore to join NATO — and even invite Taiwan to send observers to NATO meetings.”
- “Encourage Japan to renounce the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and create its own nuclear deterrent.”
Analysis
Both the goals and the policies are internally contradictory. Policies 1, 3, and 4 seem more designed to alienate China than to punish North Korea. Given that China is in unprecedented agreement with other powers on North Korea, this is likely more based on hostility toward China than the issue at hand.
If China is alienated, goal 2 — punishing North Korea — becomes much more difficult, and policy 2 loses much of its meaning.
The North Korean problem is likely to find resolution, one way or another, but a hostile China might define the 21st century.
Missile defense systems might have some utility, but also threaten China’s deterrent — which Frum sees as a benefit — and could spark an arms race and a less stable US-Chinese relationship.
If a primary goal is enhancing South Korean security, it is unclear why the US should have to pressure the South Koreans to follow its policies. As the most directly affected state, South Korea should have considerable say in what happens next.
An Asian expansion of NATO is interesting, but might be more likely to dilute the meaning the alliance than strengthen Asian security. European allies would be foolish to interpose themselves between China and Taiwan when the US was provoking China, as it would be with these policies.
As for encouraging Japan going nuclear, this might only add to instability, given general East Asian distrust of the Japanese.
Foreign policy and the Fund for Peace have released their annual Failed States Index, a valuable tool for tracking potential instability.
Foreign Policy explains:
The category of “failed states” has become part of the strategic vernacular, and it has many definitions. For the purposes of this index, a failing state is one in which the government does not have effective control of its territory, is not perceived as legitimate by a significant portion of its population, does not provide domestic security or basic public services to its citizens, and lacks a monopoly on the use of force. A failing state may experience active violence or simply be vulnerable to violence. The great majority of the states listed in the index are not presently failed states. The index measures vulnerability to violent internal conflict. It is an index of country risk, not of countries that have already failed.
The 20 most endangered states are concentrated in Africa, and include many of the least-governed countries. Ranked from most in danger downwards, they are:
1. Sudan
2. Congo, Dem. Rep. of the
3. Ivory Coast
4. Iraq
5. Zimbabwe
6. Chad
6. Somalia
8. Haiti
9. Pakistan
10. Afghanistan
11. Guinea
11. Liberia
13. Central African Republic
14. North Korea
15. Burundi
16. Yemen
17. Sierra Leone
18. Burma
19. Bangladesh
20. Nepal
The status of all 148 rankings is mapped here.
Instability in Pakistan is potentially disastrous: it could be the first nuclear-armed state to fail, and some of the parties that might get hold of the country’s nuclear weapons have links to Islamic extremist groups.
Number 31 on the list is Egypt, a lynchpin state of the Middle East, and right behind it at 32 is Indonesia, one of the largest countries in the world.