This week, an unpopular president of a small impoverished central American state was ousted in a coup before he could emulate his new-found hero, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, and brush aside limits on his stay in office. Half a world away in Tehran, the rulers more cleverly wrapped up the re-election of their president and confidently declared it was illegal to contest the result, however much the rest of the world might protest against the cheating and thuggery that accomplished it. The two countries had one thing in common - they are failing or fragile states. Two important prominent bodies, the World Bank and Foreign Policy magazine, have issued reports seeking to understand what makes a country succeed or fail. They got little publicity; that's a pity, as they contain important information and insights. More important, 60 years after the founding of the United Nations to create an authority to set global standards and triumph over petty national tyranny, after the great hope of the communist revolution in China, after lots of petty tyrants, interminable bloody lesser wars, massacres, genocides and terrorist regimes, we are hardly closer to creating a world of justice or fairness, or equality of opportunity, or any of the hopes of the brave new world. Only this week, the World Food Programme declared that a billion people are starving, and that North Korea faces famine. The World Bank report 'Worldwide Governance Indicators 1996-2008' assesses 212 countries and territories on their performance on six measures: voice and accountability; political stability and absence of violence; government effectiveness; the quality of regulations; the rule of law; and, control of corruption It asserts that 'better governance helps in the fight against poverty and improves living standards', and points to some substantial improvements. Ghana, Niger and Peru have improved on voice and accountability; as have China, Colombia and Rwanda in government effectiveness; and Indonesia, Liberia and Serbia in controlling corruption. However, it laconically concludes that 'on average, the quality of governance around the world has not improved much over the past decade'. Countries are not ranked overall, but given percentile ranks on each indicator, with higher values indicating better governance, Hong Kong scores 61 on voice and accountability; 86 for political stability; 95 for government effectiveness; 100 for regulatory quality; 91 for rule of law and 94 for control of corruption. The corresponding figures for China are 6, 33, 64, 46, 45 and 41. Singapore gets lower marks than Hong Kong on voice and accountability, just 35, but scores higher for political stability (96), government effectiveness and regulations (100), rule of law (94), and control of corruption (100). The report is accompanied by a mind-bogglingly complex essay on the sources and methodology. It would have been more helpful to readers, and to governments, to have more pointed comments on the indicators, performance and ways to improve. World Bank, minus points for communication. Foreign Policy is more direct. In co-operation with The Fund for Peace, it assesses countries on 12 points based on 30,000 sources, and scores and ranks them - the lower the score, the higher the rank, the better. Honduras, even though the second poorest country in central America, is placed in 90th position with a score of 77.2, ahead of China, 57th with 84.6, and India, 87th with 77.8. In Foreign Policy's view, only Scandinavia, Ireland, Luxembourg, Australia and New Zealand fall into the top category of 'most stable' countries, with Norway top, in 177th place with 18.3 points. Interestingly, Singapore is ranked extremely high, sandwiched in 160th place with 33.8 points, between the US in 159th and Britain. Neither Hong Kong nor Taiwan, not technically countries, is given a listing. The problem with Foreign Policy's bolder approach is that it produces a ragbag of failed or failing states, some of which, for example Zimbabwe in second place, are of little danger to anyone except their own people, while others like Pakistan (10), North Korea (17) and Iran (38) pose potential dangers not merely to their region but to the peace, and maybe the very existence, of our fragile planet. Somalia, which occupies Foreign Policy's top spot as the most failed state, is so dysfunctional that even al-Qaeda found it too lawless to operate there. Is any light likely to emerge from this tunnel? Not unless the leading countries in the world can establish standards of behaviour and try to see that they are abided by, which does not even seem a remote prospect. For years the United States, first in the battle of the superpowers with the Soviet Union, then as sole political and economic superpower, professed grand virtues of democracy and equal opportunity. But, in practice, it proved willing to forgo principle for political convenience, regarding, say, a military base or to allow a dictator to act as a buffer against unpredictable political turmoil. With its record of dubious alliances, it is hard for Washington to point the finger at Beijing for making similar accommodations today with petty dictators to ensure essential commodities to keep its economy ticking over. Even today, Washington's K Street lobbyists are making money by advising failing states. Arms dealers, oil explorers and internet companies have a well-practiced history of following the big bucks wherever they are. On this point, China's arms client list includes Zimbabwe, Sudan, Pakistan, Myanmar, and Nigeria, all in the top 15 Foreign Policy ranking. I can only lament that Beijing is aspiring to set new lows in supporting what should be prosperous countries - particularly Myanmar and North Korea - as they plunge their peoples deeper into tyranny and poverty. Is there no one, at the UN or World Bank, with the guts to tell governments this is not good enough and to chart a way through the morass to lead failed states to prosperity? Kevin Rafferty is a political commentator
