Comparing Rotberg's Arguments And Assumptions

Arguments and assumptions made by the author Throughout his excerpt, Rotberg has made a prominent claim about states and their standings. His main argument constitutes around whether a state is defined as weak, strong, or failing. What he wants the readers to understand is that in order for a Nation state to be classified as a Nation, they need to be able to provide the main component of a state, political goods. Rotberg stresses that not only do states need political goods, but also they need to have security in order to run properly and efficiently. One assumption made by Rotberg is that he believes there are four classifications when it comes to defining states. He classifies them as, A strong state, A weak state, a failing or failed state,
Rotberg believes that when it comes to a state's failure, it doesn’t just happen because of other implication of the state but solely because of human agency. One cannot find the means to agree with Rotberg’s statement. Yes, human agency plays a significant role when it comes to a state's defiance, but it doesn’t necessarily mean it has to fail based on that one factor alone. If a state is already weak in the area of not being able to supply an adequate quality or quantity of political goods for the state and the citizens, it’s not the fault of the human regency it’s the fault of a state as a whole. Blaming just one factor for a state’s failure in not really justifiable. There are many factors that can lead to a state's weakening or failure. Even in some weak states, there can be a strong dictatorship still that is trying to do the necessary means to prevent the state from actually failing. When a state is unable to provide basic services or is only able to provide them at a low level that is when it starts failing. For a second counterargument, Rotberg has also stated that when a state is on the verge of failure or has failed it is because the nation state controls the capital city and it cannot project power. With that being said, he believes that if the state does not have a monopoly on the use of force within its borders and it isn’t able to
Rotberg is able to define what his argument means in his text with the knowledge of being able to define what a state really is and the different type of states that exist throughout the nations. In today’s world, Syria can be seen as an example as a stated that has failed due to many unfortunate issues dating back to March 2011. There was a recent article pertaining to Syrian refugees and their status of going towards Turkey, though Turkey does not really want them crossing over to their side. The refugees are now starting to make note that they aren’t coming all that way just to lie at the border and not be allowed into Turkey. What they want is safety and security for their children and families that their homeland, Syria isn’t able to provide. The article correlates with Rotberg’s definition of a failing state because in Syria’s case, there is no political goods mainly security that is able to be provided for it’s citizens in the country. The unfortunate events of Syria’s “cold war” have been ongoing since 2011 and it has continued to get worse over the years. It is unfortunate to see a real life example of what a failed state really looks like, but its just Syria. There are so many places around the world that may not be in the exact same situation but they too have a weak or failing