Frequently Asked Questions

How does the Commission define weakness? Which states pose the most serious threat to US national security?

The Commission defines weak states as those countries where governments are unable to do the things that their own citizens and the international community expect from them.They exhibit capability gaps in one or more of three areas: they are failing to control their territories (security gap); failing to meet the most basic needs – education, health services – of their citizens (capacity gap); and failing to provide the legitimacy that flows from effective, transparent governance (legitimacy gap).Weak and failed states are particularly prevalent among the seventy-plus low-income countries.

The challenge is not merely to predict which states pose the most threat, but to strengthen the institutions of governance in low-income countries more broadly; to offer every state the tools to improve its institutions, better the lives of its citizens, and partner with the US in fighting instability and insecurity.

All of the nations you cite as examples of “weak” states are incredibly poor – does this mean poverty breeds terrorism?

If we want to reduce the terrorist threat in the long-run, we need to ask a different question: where does this kind of extremism thrive?Extremists thrive where they can exploit frustration and indignity, no matter what its cause – chronic poverty, political exclusion, or insecurity.Extremists prosper where they can operate under the radar screen, taking advantage of weak oversight to grow their organizations and plan their next operation.While there is no direct link between poverty and terrorism, weak states can serve as breeding grounds for, and a safe haven to, a whole host of transnational threats that include terrorism.

How do I apply this report and the recommendations to Iraq and Afghanistan?

The situations in Iraq and Afghanistan warn of the serious consequences for our security when we allow governments to collapse and chaos to reign, and have exposed our lack of readiness to take on the difficult and important mission of helping countries recover from conflict. For every Iraq and Afghanistan, there are twenty countries struggling under the radar screen: their governments unable or unwilling to set in place policies and institutions that will make them viable for the long-term.We need to be ready to meet this challenge: with instruments flexible enough to respond in a timely fashion; people, with the skills and expertise to do the job; and a leadership, prepared to make the long-term investments that are required.

Shouldn’t we be more concerned about North Korea and Iran than these 50 weak states?

Weak and failed states are not the only threat to US national security.But among our major challenges, they have received the least attention.It is easy to ignore underlying sources of instability because their consequences are not realized until, potentially, far in the future.But by realizing that there is much we can do now to prevent these threats from worsening, we have a unique opportunity to act, through means other than military power, to make the world safer and more prosperous.

How much will the Commission’s recommendations cost?

Most of the recommendations are costless.The real challenge to policymakers is more about political will than about resources.The report calls on US policymakers to overcome a history of inattention and uncoordinated engagement to the long-term challenges posed by weak and failed states. Some of the recommendations require additional but necessary expenses to ensure the nation’s ability to meet these challenges. In the end, investing in weak states now will save the cost in lives and dollars of the next military intervention and reconstruction operation and yield huge returns in terms of improving the lives and economic opportunities of the world’s poor, while creating strong American allies and trading partners.

Is the Commission recommending a new Cabinet agency primarily to draw attention to its own issues?

Since 9/11, the US government has awakened to the fact that its agencies are not organized to meet the new challenges of the post-Cold War world.Refashioning our institutions to meet new threats, we began by establishing the Department of Homeland Security.Soon, the intelligence reforms being discussed by the 9/11 Commission and the Silberman-Robb Commission on Intelligence and WMD will lead to an overhaul of our intelligence community.We can no longer be caught asleep at the wheel when it comes to the long-term challenge of helping developing countries build their own capacities.We need a foreign policy that better reflects decision making and problem solving in an interdependent world; that links development and security together with smart and right policies under the authority of one Cabinet-level development agency capable of meeting these new threats and opportunities.

Can a development agency really be the solution to security concerns?

In an increasingly interdependent world, smart policy links terrorism in Afghanistan with consideration of why the Taliban and Al Qaeda were able to sell their oppressive brand of leadership to an impoverished population.Enlightened policy recognizes links between conflict in Africa and the illegal arms markets that thrive in the states of Central Asia.Forward-looking policy integrates experts who know how to help build effective, legitimate governments into US foreign policymaking.Efficient policy centralizes development programs now spread across more than 15 government departments, dispersed across numerous accounts under one decision making and budget authority structure unencumbered by a long list of Congressional earmarks and directives, and a depleted resource base.We need to reform development policy, not just for its own sake, but also for national security’s sake.

The US has spent a lot of money on foreign aid programs, yet high levels of global poverty persist.What will make the Commission’s recommendations more effective?

Over the last 50 years, we have seen tremendous improvements in income, health and education in poor countries:the international community, with the US as the single largest donor, has eradicated smallpox from the world; average life expectancy worldwide has increased from 44 to 59 years; millions more children are in school; incomes in poor countries have tripled.US development assistance, diplomacy, and technical training have helped nations in Southeast Asia substantially reduce poverty; have helped replace military governments with a democratic revolution across Latin America; and have seen the beginnings of positive change in Africa, from South Africa to Senegal.These are big returns on our investment. The Commission report builds on these successes and seeks to promote increased effectiveness by applying many of the lessons we have learned along the way: that collaboration with other nations brings additional legitimacy and resources to US operations; that it is more difficult and costly to clean up after state collapse than to prevent it; that development is more than aid – trade, investment, security and other important policies matter as well; and that development takes time.The Commission recommends that the US bring the agencies and people responsible for these past successes under one roof and give them a higher profile in US foreign policy with the leadership, resources, and credibility to take on the challenges that confront them.