Middle East News
© 2007 dpa - Deutsche Presse-Agentur
Iraq ranked second as world most unstable state
Jun 18, 2007, 16:51 GMT
Washington - Iraq has been ranked the world's second most unstable state by an index published Monday, four years after US President George W Bush ordered the invasion of the country.
Sudan, which has been plagued by a civil war in its Darfur region, topped the list for the second straight year. The ranking is based on on 12 social, economic, political, and military indicators gathered from May 2006 to December 2006 and evaluated by Foreign Policy magazine and the Fund for Peace.
Iraq climbed from fourth last year to second after being ravaged by widespread sectarian violence. Bush in January sent more than 20,000 additional troops to Iraq in an effort to quell the clashes.
Afghanistan, where US and NATO troops are trying to fend off the Taliban, placed eighth on the 'Failed States Index' and remains unstable despite years of US economic and military aid.
Eight of the 10 weakest states were in sub-Saharan Africa, up from six last year, and two of the worst 15, North Korea and Pakistan, are nuclear powers.
Here is a list of the top 20 most unstable countries indexed by Foreign Policy and the Fund for Peace:
1, Sudan;
2, Iraq;
3, Somalia;
4, Zimbabwe;
5, Chad;
6, Ivory Coast;
7, Democratic Republic of the Congo;
8, Afghanistan;
9, Guinea;
10, Central African Republic;
11, Haiti;
12, Pakistan;
13, North Korea;
14, Myanmar;
15, Uganda;
16, Bangladesh;
17, Nigeria;
18, Ethiopia;
19, Burundi;
20, Timor-Leste.
East Timor's Defence
ResponderEliminarSunday 17 June, 2007 - 18:04 by James Dunn AM in Commentary
The news that East Timor may be considering setting up a composite
defence force of some 3000 personnel has aroused a curious, and
generally negative reaction here in Australia. Some of the comments
border on the absurd – for example, the ridiculing of the size of the
force and the need for 'such a small nation' to have a force of this size.
Well, East Timor is not really so small. It is several times the size
of Singapore and Brunei, with fishing resources and potential marine
exploration sites to protect. For this purpose little Brunei (just
over 2,000 sq miles, or one-third the size of ETimor) has a force of
some 7,000. And Fiji, which is smaller both in size and population,
has a force of of 3,500. The question is not just about the size of
the force, but its nature and its purpose. Not least it must be
grounded in the constitutional discipline that assures East Timor that
it will never again breach that neutrality so essential in a
democracy. My view is that a force along the lines of a national guard
might be considered – a force designed to support the Timorese people
in the event of national disasters, as well as military threats, a
force that could support the ongoing task of reconstruction.
Those who feel the East Timorese should be relying on the Australian
presence should think again. Our forces may constitute a comforting
presence, but this new nation has to have some defence capacity of its
own, for it cannot be assumed that East Timor and Australia's national
interests will always coincide. Certainly that did not happen in the
past, as we all so well knpw. As for the present, the Australian
Government's lack of interest in bringing to justice`those TNI
officers responsible for past atrocities is in itself a warning that
our perceptions of national interest may not always place East Timor's
interests ahead of expediency .
There has been criticism of the perceived need for helicopters, but
their presence is of fundamental importance to emergency services, as
well as surveillance, in Timor's mountainous terrain. As for plans for
a navy, the vessels concerned should, I feel, be fast patrol vessels,
rather than corvettes, which are expensive both to purchase and run.
Australia could assist the development of this force, rather than
suggest that it is unnecessary. The development of such a force will
take time – and money = but military assistance could make it affordable
Com a amnistia e, consequentemente, com a banditagem do Reinado e do Rai Lós a passearem livremente por Dili, certamente que Timor passará aos primeiros lugares da tabela.
ResponderEliminarNão esta tão precário assim
ResponderEliminarTradução:
ResponderEliminarAqui está a lista dos 20 primeiros países mais instáveis indexados pelo Foreign Policy e pelo Fund for Peace:
1, Sudão;
2, Iraque;
3, Somália;
4, Zimbabwe;
5, Chad;
6, Costa do Marfim;
7, República Democrática do Congo;
8, Afeganistão;
9, Guiné;
10, República Central Africana;
11, Haiti;
12, Paquistão;
13, Coreia do Norte;
14, Myanmar;
15, Uganda;
16, Bangladesh;
17, Nigéria;
18, Etiópia;
19, Burundi;
20, Timor-Leste.
Tradução:
ResponderEliminarRanking de países "instáveis"
Middle East News
© 2007 dpa - Deutsche Presse-Agentur
Iraque em segundo lugar como o Estado mais instável do mundo
Jun 18, 2007, 16:51 GMT
Washington – O Iraque foi classificado como o Segundo Estado mais instável do mundo numa tabela publicada na Segunda-feira, quarto anos depois de o Presidente dos USA George W Bush ter ordenado a invasão do país.
O Sudão, que tem sofrido com uma Guerra civil na sua região do Darfur, está no topo da lista pelo segundo ano consecutivo. A classificação baseia-se em 12 indicadores sociais, económicos, políticos, e militares recolhidos de Maio a Dezembro de 2006 e avaliados pela revista Foreign Policy e pelo Fund for Peace.
O Iraque subiu do quarto no ano passado para o Segundo depois de ter sido percorrido por alargada violência sectária. Bush em Janeiro mandou mais de 20,000 tropas adicionais para o Iraque num esforço para acalmar os confrontos.
O Afeganistão, onde tropas dos USA e da NATO estão a tentar derrotar os Talibãs, está em oitavo lugar na 'Tabela dos Estados Falhados' e mantém-se instável apesar de anos de ajuda económica e militar dos USA.
Oito dos dez Estados mais fracos estavam na África Sub-Sariana, de seis que estavam no ano passado, e dois dos 15 piores, Coreia do Norte e Paquistão são potências nucleares.