Second Blog Post

In discussion on Friday we brought up an intriguing question: is Syria truly a failed state? With the readings and lectures explaining both the concept of a failed state and the current situation in Syria, opinion among the section was still somewhat divided on whether or not Syria met the criteria for a failed state. I believe that it is in fact a failed state, as it simply has too many established qualities of failed states. In addition, these negative traits also lead into other traits of failed states that at first it may appear Syria does not have.

            In lecture we formed a list of traits that qualify a state to be considered a failed state. Among these traits are civil war, social unrest, mortality rates, and lack of political control. Due to common knowledge of the situation in Syria, and especially after reading this week’s material, I believe Syria falls into all four of these categories, which combine to make up about half of the overall list. All of these traits are related, and the current conflict in Syria is a perfect display of all four of them. In the economist debate concerning military intervention in Syria, the moderator’s opening remarks show these problems at work in her overview of the situation at hand. Concerning the ongoing conflict in Syria, she states, “Eleven bloody months later, with more than 7,000 people dead in the government's continuing crackdown, those hopes are long gone.” (Delap, Economist debate)  Simply within this very general summary of the events of the conflict in Syria, Delap has managed to show a high mortality rate, civil war, and lack of political control.

While some may argue that there is at least an established government in Syria unlike other failed states, this established government clearly has no political control, as there are full-scale uprisings against it and a massive death toll among these continuing uprisings. This is also a very clear example of social unrest, which is a crucial aspect that I believe in itself constitutes a failed state. Specifically when social unrest is in the form of violent revolution, there is no possibility of a state being considered stable, which is one of the most vital attributes of non-failed states. In addition, these internal conflicts that can be considered a civil war also has undoubtedly lead Syria to other problems that we also established as criteria for a failed state.  As we touched on in lecture, civil war is almost guaranteed to doom a state in other areas besides those already mentioned. Civil war leads to economic instability as any war really would, but a nation spending money to murder its own people is truly economically crippling.  Civil war also leads to civil rights abuses, another important trait for failed states, as people hardly have freedom and other natural rights when their government is essentially at war with them.

Clearly, if Syria wasn’t a failed state before its ongoing civil war started it is a failed state today. The social unrest which lead to civil war lead to Syria having almost every trait of failed states, and it seems unlikely that military intervention would be necessary in any state that was not in fact a failed state.