As the Global Economy Takes A Nosedive, Violent Conflict Trends Upward
Published March 23, 2009 @ 05:28PM PT
While we fret over executive salary bonuses in the US, a far more ominous storm is brewing beyond our borders: The very real possibility that the global economic recession will lead to political instability and violent conflict.
A report released by the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) attempts to quantify country risk levels with the Political Instability Index, which rates countries according to 12 indicators of "underlying vulnerability" (is the country unstable in the first place?) and 3 indicators of economic distress (how healthy is the economy to start with?).
The results are no big surprise: Zimbabwe weighs it at #1 (Bobby should be proud), with Chad, the DRC, Cambodia, and Sudan trailing close behind. Well aren't these countries already conflict-ridden, or at the very least on incredibly shaky ground, you ask? What's the "risk" here if these places are already total basketcases?
The point is that the economic downturn will make existing tensions and conflicts even worse --- more intense, protracted armed conflict is increasing in probability as unemployment rises and resources become increasingly scarce. As the report notes:
"By and large, the risk in Sub-Saharan Africa is that tensions arising from the economic crisis will exacerbate problems, whether political weaknesses..., fragile institutional frameworks..., or income inequities associated with the so-called resource curse."
And while our friend Bobby Mugabe may have the honor of being the world's #1 dictator, he'd better watch out:
"However, there is more of a questionmark over the most obvious high-risk state: Zimbabwe. Given that the government has survived the almost-complete implosion of the economy, the rigging of numerous elections and the oppression of large sections of the population, it may yet be able to ride out the latest threat. That said, if declining commodity prices lessens its ability to buy off military and security forces, the Mugabe government may finally fall."
(Given how thoroughly Mugabe has driven his country into the ground, it's hard to imagine that economics would finally be his downfall...but you never know.)
So while the US Congress is penny-pinching and cutting corners in the federal budget to deal with the massive deficit, now is not the time to cut funding to our foreign policy institutions. A world in even more chaos isn't a good thing for anyone.
(Unless you're an aspiring human rights abuser, that is.)
PS - Keen on moving to a country where the risk of political instability is the lowest? Pack your woolies and head to Norway.
Share this Post
Facebook
Twitter
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
EmailRelated Posts
-
Mr. Mugabe? Mr. Bashir? Your Attention, Please.
-
Hillary's Hearings: Who Knew Power Could Be So Smart?
-
Failing Our Peacekeepers
Comments (9)
Comments on Change.org are meant for further exploration and evaluation of the ideas covered in the posts. To that end, we welcome constructive comments. However, we reserve the right to delete comments that are offensive, abusive, or off-topic; that contain ad hominem attacks; or that are designed to subvert or hijack comment threads rather than contribute to them. Repeat offenders may be permanently removed from the site at our discretion.
Author
-
Michelle became involved in the anti-genocide cause at a young age, and has been involved in various activist endeavors, including the Teach Against Genocide pilot campaigns, ever since.
This report is right on target. It is said that when the U.S.A.
sneezes, the rest of the world catches a cold. Well, I would
suggest that, in the current global economic crisis, the world
coud easily contract the flu. If countries continue to implode
politically and economically, the fallout will be pervasive.
The fiscal health of this planet will not be resolved for a long
time. The peoples of certain hard-hit countries, for lack of
adequate food, housing and income will rise up; there will be
unsettling revolutions. All of this will reverberate back onto
the U.S., obligating us once again to at least maintain, if not
increase our 'charitable' contributions to international aid.
America cannot continue to 'bail out' here at home and
abroad indefinitely. There will be a breaking point.
With unpredictable unrest across the globe, and because of
the economic recessionary trend, we may be facing greater
worldwide peril than anyone imagined.
Posted by Christopher Popham Smith on 03/24/2009 @ 05:51AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Note that Somalia is one of the very few "not rated" countries/territories.
Posted by Eric Jon Magnuson on 03/24/2009 @ 07:31AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I noticed --- and thought, well I suppose it's hard to imagine near-total anarchy and chaos being at risk for anything that it isn't already. It's off the charts, so to speak.
Posted by Michelle . on 03/24/2009 @ 02:53PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Yep, the general consensus seem to be that the global recession will kill off weak governments, creating more failed and collapsed states, which will then become neighborhood black holes.
Not good stuff.
Posted by Transitionl... . on 03/24/2009 @ 09:39AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Wow, it's now official. We run the entire planet with our policies. Let us sit back and watch the show because our government won't be taking action themselves on the matter. It's my belief because the U.S only gets involved when it's to our benefit or a threat to our "National Security" which is another way of saying the way our government runs things. Not the actual saftey of the people. There's way too many of us to get rid of for that to be a concern. And we actually "knuckle up" when a problem comes our way (over 200 hundred years of history to prove it). In the case of Zimbabwe and Darfur what would be the point for us. They don't have anything the U.S wants (except for a outstanding diet progam, which we could use). Let's hope they find oil on there lands. We'd be there in heart be to "save them" then;)
Posted by Jim Kingsley on 03/24/2009 @ 10:20AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
You're right that the US, like most nations, tends to defer to national interest --- but I think there's a compelling case being made that Sudan is a National Security issue for the US.
I appreciate your participation in the discussion, but think that refering to the forced starvation of the people of Darfur as an "outstanding diet program" crosses the line of sarcasm and into tactlessness.
Posted by Michelle . on 03/24/2009 @ 02:56PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Maybe....
Posted by Jim Kingsley on 03/24/2009 @ 04:19PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
But I'm not running for office so I'll make a point as I choose tactfully or not. There's a good example of belligerence for you too since ya like examining things so much. And I'm sorry for arguing. You are standing up for a very knoble cause. And yes, I do think some of our majority of the population aka the over weight could use some forced starvation (not just to be mean but for their own clogged up artery health). But then again, the food banks are starting to run dry here too I hear. So I guess that's in our future as well. Bring on the violence at home.........man, I do need to watch my tact.
Posted by Jim Kingsley on 03/24/2009 @ 04:41PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
A little ssarcasm is O.K. Mr. Kingsley. We need some levity
when the issue at hand is so serious. You are correct about
the 'overweightness' in America. The health care costs are
astronomical because of people's poor eating habits, lack of
exercise and so on. You're also right about a possible
revolution on our soil, especially if the economy doesn't
improve. In the meantime however, we do need to concern
ourselves with the condition of other states (nations) as the
global situation, politically and economically worsens.
Posted by Christopher Popham Smith on 03/24/2009 @ 06:12PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.