Strong vs Weak

          The World Bank described a weak state as, “low income countries under stress”. I would consider MENA states as weak because many are poor and have weak structures of government to support their wealth. For example, countries like Syria where 11% of their population lives in extreme poverty. Syria is also under extreme stress due to the war which has caused their structure of government to essentially fall apart. They are unable to keep ISIS out and instead have allowed terrorists to infect their country because they can’t defend it themselves. This deems Syria as a weak state. In addition, Libya also has an extreme weak economy due to mismanagement of their government and natural resources. Many, not all, MENA states have similar issues that plague their country. They are considered weak because of their lack of money and how many of them also are dealing with war and corruption which has crippled their states even more.

            It is hard to exactly define what makes a strong state and what makes a weak state because those implications mean different things to every state. No state is alike. For example, a large military could really make a state strong. On the other hand though, a large military could hurt a small state by creating a large unemployment rate in the private sector because all the men are in the military. It’s hard to categorize a strong state by saying a  state with nuclear power, a military, high GDP, fair government, and a healthy population because those things don’t always make a state strong. The “bandwagoning act” is an interesting perspective on the idea of weak and strong states. States with less money and resources link up and form alliances with states that have more money and resources in order to protect their interests. If a weaker state links up with a stronger state, does that make the weaker state strong? It is because of these complications it is hardly impossible to come up with a single-handed definition of what makes a state weak or strong.