Invalid sovereignty in failing states

In a global perspective, the most evident vacuum lies in balancing the notion of failed state and sovereignty. The principle of sovereignty dictates that no higher authority exists other than state and a state is completely free and without bounds in exacting its authority in its local affairs.

This idea when viewed in the context of failing states becomes alarmingly redundant as failing states are the voids of authority that have clashing groups and ideologies vying for control. It also invites other countries to pursue their interests by changing the political and structural environments of the beleaguered state by direct or indirect interventions.

A look into the period of turmoil that has inflicted Pakistan, the era of instability and violence when the echoes of a ‘failed state’ were more pronounced than ever, patterns of such interventions were visible in Pakistan.

The diplomatic interferences along with the spy networks that exacerbated the patterns of violence were a direct result of the US intervention in Afghanistan.

As the US forces exit the Afghan land, would it be justified for Pakistan to act in its national interest by interfering in the affairs in Afghanistan? The answer may ideally be a wrong one but realistically, it is not. It is because the principle of sovereignty has been moulded and transformed by every stronger country in favour of its own security and stability.



In historical terms, the principle of sovereignty was fairly undermined by the duo of superpowers in their contest for hegemony. The main debates from that period largely focus on the divide between political systems and sphere of influences of the capitalist and communist bloc.

In those times, it was common for superpowers to intervene and influence the state systems in various countries fracturing their institutions. This greatly undermined the principle of sovereignty by changing the tilting structure of the international balance of power. It also induced many other states to carry out interventionism in their own backyard notably India and China.

In the aftermath of the Cold War, these policies were seemingly stopped. There was no need to instruct others how to conduct their business. This changed with the consequential war on terror in the aftermath of 9/11.

The US in its thrust to dominate affairs of the world countered the notions of sovereignty by bringing forward the concept of pre-emption. This allowed the US to attack countries shattering the mirage of their sovereignty by its brute force. This case was a unique one as it dismantled the various concepts of internationalism by legitimising the US’ actions against sovereign nations based on its forestalling action.

While there exist varying degrees of failing states, one thing that is of most prominence is the failure of the government to control and satisfy its citizens. The causes for such a condition include political, social and economic failures coupled with structural inconsistencies in governance system, widespread social inequalities and weakly administered laws.

The effects of a failing state are felt across the region and in these cases, the dilemma to act or not by other states becomes more noticeable and compulsory. As a state, Afghanistan can be categorised as such a case. It is pertinent to understand that while in ideal terms Afghanistan is a sovereign nation, but the impact of its failure will largely be felt in the region. It is, therefore, a necessity that the Afghan-led peace process should include the perspectives from its neighbours, especially Pakistan.

Published in The Express Tribune, February 2^nd, 2019.

Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.