Failed state indicators challenges to ASEAN

Hafid Abbas, Jakarta | Opinion | Wed, August 01 2012, 8:12 AM

Klipping The Jakarta Post

A- A A+

Paper Edition | Page: 6

The recent publication of The Fund for Peace 2012, Failed States Index, has created world-wide controversy. Those who are displeased by the report criticize its failure to take into account indicators like cultural diversity and other factors that we can not simply quantify.

Indonesia deems the report inaccurate and baseless since the country is enjoying fantastic economic growth of up to 6.5 percent; is strongly committed to democratization and decentralization; promotes and protects human rights and has considerable press freedom.

Despite creating widespread disagreement, the report could be important for ASEAN members to address internal matters and accelerate the realization of “ASEAN Community 2015”. It is also relevant to the Initiative for ASEAN Integration (IAI) which was launched at the summit in 2000.

Recently, Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen told other leaders that the main agenda was to transform ourselves into a European Union-like community in only three years’ time.

The Fund for Peace report presents various issues which cannot be solved by individual countries in isolation. Myanmar is the only ASEAN country in a “critical” condition.

From social and political indicators, Myanmar continues to deteriorate. Its score in 11 out of 12 of indicators is above seven on a scale of 1-10, with 10 being worst. Its state legitimacy score is 9.4 (corruption and lack of representation in the government); “uneven economic development” scores 8.7 (ethnic, religious, or regional disparities); “Group grievances” (tension and violence between groups and the state’s ability to provide security) also scored 8.7.

Four countries are in danger of plunging to the ‘failed state’ category: Cambodia, Laos, the Philippines and Indonesia. Cambodia for example, has nine out of 12 indicator scores with scores above seven.

The worst indicator is its progressive deterioration of public services, while Laos has serious problems on human rights especially the rise of factionalized elites.

Similarly, the Philippines is facing a critical issue with security. Indonesia, meanwhile, is considered very weak in social indicators especially the mounting demographic pressures related to natural disasters, disease, environmental degradation, pollution, food scarcity, malnutrition, water scarcity, population growth, youth bulge and mortality rate.

The third category comprises Thailand and Vietnam. According to the report, Thailand has to address the long-standing issue of factionalized elites.

Its local and national leaders are embroiled in disputes and brinksmanship for political gain, power struggles, defectors, flawed elections and political competition. Vietnam has to address critical issues concerning state legitimacy and human rights, which include press freedom and civil liberties.

The fifth group consists of countries in the “safe zone”: Malaysia and Brunei. Malaysia is very weak on human rights, lack of press and political freedom, torture and opposition figures jailed as political prisoners. Brunei has a dominant issue on uneven economic development related to ethnic, religious, or regional disparities, a yawning gap between the rich and the poor, slum populations, etc.

Then the only ASEAN country to have reached the level of “a very stable state”: Singapore. The only issue facing the wealthy city state is human rights, particularly press and political freedom.

Given these circumstances, there must be a collective and genuine ASEAN solidarity to immediately reduce the gaps between nations in the spirit of the 1967 Bangkok Declaration, ASEAN Vision 2020 and the ongoing creation of a single community of nations by 2015. Without joint effort, ASEAN dream will remain an empty dream.

The writer is currently a professor at the State University of Jakarta and former director general of Law and Human Rights Ministry and  IIEP UNESCO consultant