The country is developing, not failing.
The unsavory inclusion of Pakistan on the Fund for Peace’s Failed States Index is discriminatory and an affront to a proud nation of 180 million people (July/August 2011).
The index is hampered by the lack of distinction between a true failed state and a developing state that is effectively functional, like Pakistan. Indeed, Pakistan is the world’s 28th-largest economy, with a sizable GDP. It is also among the world’s eight nuclear states, and its disciplined army is the fifth largest in the world. The country has democratic institutions in place: a fully independent judiciary, a vibrant and dynamic media, and a civil society that upholds progressive values. In international sports it has world rankings in cricket, hockey, and squash. Despite numerous internal and external challenges, the nation remained united to deal with the mammoth disasters that recently struck the country: namely, the 2005 earthquake and the floods last year that displaced approximately 25 million people.
Pakistan has always sided with the free world, evident from the fact that the country has remained a state on the front lines of war for 20 of the last 30 years — in the 1980s during the Soviet-Afghan war, which was won decisively, and now, since 9/11, in the war on terror. The democratically elected government of President Asif Ali Zardari and Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani has been mobilizing political will to forge national unity to fight terrorism, eliminate extremism, and carry out army operations against militants in the Pakistani tribal belt.
Pakistan’s sacrifices in blood and treasure are unmatched by all NATO countries put together, with more than 30,000 civilian and military casualties so far; unabated suicide attacks killing people in markets, mosques, parks, and other public places; and raids on military installations throughout the country. For these burdens and sacrifices, Pakistan is dealt only suspicion and distrust by its allies.
Pakistan is caught up in a very difficult situation. On the one hand, within hours of the Abbottabad raid that killed Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda declared war on Pakistan and increased the number of attacks. On the other hand, Pakistan was blamed for his presence. There should be no qualms in accepting the fact that bin Laden was not kept in Abbottabad — he was merely found there. U.S. President Barack Obama’s statement on the night after the raid that intelligence provided by Pakistan led to the compound where bin Laden was residing says all that should need to be said.
The international community, instead of putting pressure on Pakistan to do too much, too fast, must support Pakistan in its endeavors to defeat extremism and terrorism. There is convergence on the broader strategic objective of winning the war against terrorism to ensure global peace and security.
Pakistan has an unflinching resolve to emerge as a progressive and prosperous country to play its effective role in the comity of nations. It is well on its way.
Embassy of Pakistan
Nate Haken of the Fund for Peace replies:
Let me be clear: We are not saying that Pakistan is a "failed state." This index does not make that determination. Rather, it identifies pressures on states that put them at risk of failure, unless state institutions are sufficiently professional, representative, and legitimate enough to deal effectively with those pressures.
The point of the Failed States Index is to provide a tool by which all stakeholders, including government, civil society, and the private sector, can clearly see which social, economic, political, and security indicators are exhibiting the most stress, so that everyone can work together for sustainable security and conflict-sensitive development over the long term. Every country in the world has a risk profile. Some states are under more pressure than others. And as Imran Gardezi points out in his letter, Pakistan is under enormous pressure, which accounts for its ranking of No. 12 in our index.
But the most important aspect of the index is not a country’s rank in a vertical listing. Instead, what is critically important is the horizontal aspect of the index: that is, the indicator-by-indicator data that identify areas of weakness. For instance, a natural disaster can have a ripple effect across most of the 12 indicators. Floods destroy infrastructure, affecting service delivery. Population displacement can add to issues of group grievance among the displaced and host communities. Relief efforts can have unintended consequences with respect to local economies. Law and order can break down, providing space for armed groups to project their influence. These types of insights can be very useful for policymakers in terms of both prevention and response.
We earnestly hope that this product of our research is understood for what it is and that any controversy it may engender leads to a constructive dialogue over how to make this world a more peaceful place for everyone.