Global News : Passport : Ricks : Drezner : Walt : Rothkopf : Lynch
The Cable : The AfPak Blog : Net Effect : Shadow Govt. : Madam Secretary : The Call
The world's 10 most dangerous countries

Yesterday, I spent a little time ruminating as to whether Pakistan was really the most dangerous country in the world. And I promised to consider today which countries were, in fact, should worry us the most.
To begin with, let's consider criteria and that means we need to ask "dangerous to whom?" There are plenty of local actors who are the nearest, greatest threats to the neighbors. So, let's limit ourselves to actors who can cause the greatest disruption through their actions to the most people over the next decade or so.
Here are my top 10:
10. Venezuela
Ok, Chávez won't start any world wars. But think of his disruptive reach around the hemisphere, his support for the FARC, and his cultivation of ties to Russia, China and the Middle East and its clear this is the one guy who is most likely to disrupt lives in Latin America for the foreseeable future.
9. Iraq and Saudi Arabia (Tie)
The final chapter has not been written in Iraq. Saddam may not have posed the threat Bush ascribed to him, but the fragmentation of this country (particularly in Kurdistan) could be massively destabilizing in the region and create real problems with Turkey, Iran, and Russia. The Saudis support terror, their succession picture is murky, they are likely to be one of the first to respond to Iranian nukes with a program of their own, and they pull key levers in OPEC. Hard not to include them, too.
8. The European Union
Europe should be a force for stability in the world. But an EU without an effective foreign policy mechanism, without the ability to shoulder its share of the military burden associated with keeping the world safe, with a faltering Euro and with too many new members is a big void where the world needs strength. Sometimes the greatest threat comes from those who could take action to preserve stability but who do not.
7. Nigeria and Congo (Tie)
Nigeria is the biggest country on a continent that is increasingly important to the world for oil and other resources. It is a major player in the global energy scene. And it faces multiple threats both internally and from a truly scary neighborhood. Congo is the site of the world's most deadly conflict of the past decade and both a metaphor and hub for the kind of regional fracturing that make instability in Africa one of the things most worrying to U.S. and European military commanders.
6. Israel and Palestine (Tie)
This is a dangerous place, for sure. Hostile or ill-considered moves by either party can trigger regional instability that would impact global energy markets and draw the attention of every major world power. The only reason this festering wound is ranked so low: everyone is so accustomed to it that it is more likely than not to have very narrow consequences even if it heats to a boil for extended periods.
5. Iran
Iran could be an important regional force for stability. But for the near term that looks pretty unlikely. Meanwhile, if the Iranian nuclear program triggers a regional arms race that may not mean state-on-state thermonuclear disaster (deterrence probably still works for most states) but it vastly increases the likelihood that some nuke ends up in the hands of some non-state (or allegedly non-state) actor.
4. Russia
See the preceding article. I rank them behind Pakistan because the odds are better that their desire to be part of the world system ultimately suppresses the country's more dangerous impulses. And because they are likely for the near term to be more dangerous as a diplomatic and political disruptor and as a regional mischief maker than as a direct military threat to anyone outside their immediate neighborhood. If I'm in that neighborhood though, I'm uncomfortable. And on top of all that, the most recent picture of a bare-chested Putin on horseback has me worried.
3. Pakistan
Pakistan is just barely a functioning state in the pieces of the country where the government has some control. As for the rest of the place? There are pieces that never bought into the idea of the Pakistani nation. So take that, add nukes, add the impact on India and Afghanistan, add al Qaeda and the Taliban, add the country as a petri dish and a symbol for radical Islam and it's still the place with the biggest potential to blow up into something very messy for the world in the next several years.
2. China
I do not believe China is a military threat to the U.S. or to anyone now or at any time in the near future. Rather they are on top of this list for the same reason that the number one country is: the most dangerous countries are the ones with the most power. They flex their muscle ... economic, political, or military... and they have the biggest impact. Or, as in the case of China, if they don't ... if they remain the reluctant great power ... and don't assume a role in the international system proportionate to their power, it will throw the system out of balance. (For example: if Iran's nuclear program is a threat and China could make a difference in containing it but doesn't ... they become a contributor to the threat.) Further, they've got internal struggles that could have them focused inward for a long time ... some, with the Uighurs say, that could have them caught up in a struggle with the Islamic world that could next spread into Central Asia (a development that worries me a great deal.)
1. The United States
I generally believe the U.S. is a force for good in the world and I am inclined to believe that is the objective of the current administration. But there is no denying that the one country who has most aggressively reached out to touch the world militarily in the past decade is the Untied States. Further, and more importantly, following the logic in the EU and China mentions above...no one has more power than the United States. That means no one can do more damage with a mistake or even with inaction. Also: as in the case of China and the EU, our economic missteps punish the planet and there is very little evidence to suggest we've taken the steps we need to avoid another meltdown of the 2008-2009 variety. Ask yourself: What has harmed more people on the planet, terrorist brutality or Wall Street venality?
DANIL SEMYONOV/AFP/Getty Images







Well, since you asked...
Generally a well thought out list, but that last little comment was moronic...setting Wall Street bankers versus terrorists is a false comparison in any number of ways. Most fundamentally, if someone on Wall Street screws up, my rate of return on my 401(k) declines a bit; hardly in the same league as the suffering of the millions of victims of Al Queda, the Taliban, and the regime in North Korea. In fact, when you balance the 'harm' caused by Wall Street against the indisputable good that it has done mankind generally (the more efficient allocation of capital, the ability of the masses to invest, the generally good returns over the past 30 years) you would have to conclude that Wall Street is a force for good in the world.
On a broader canvas, the damage caused by "our economic missteps" are temporary glitches in the increasing wealth that the American economic system, epitomized by Wall Street, has brought to the world. Consider how backward China and Japan would still be if they had no access to the US markets over the past 30 (for China) or 60 (for Japan) years. To judge an economic system which has raised millions (actually billions) out of povert by its temporary reversals is like blaming a life-saving miracle cure for the the 10% of people it fails to save.
The world as viewed through a 401-K
Just a hint: your 401-K may not be the best window through which to view the world. See my comment eight or ten posts further down. A recession like this causes macro-economic consequences that are crushing for the world's most vulnerable.
And no one is judging the economic system based on its flaws. Rather, my point is that this system can be and is gamed in ways that when they blow up have broad and painful consequences for innocents. It's something that we ought to fix within the system (rather than an indictment of the system as a whole.)
Juiced
I've been impressed by your books and resume. But I find your analysis to be weak and whiny on this blog. Please put a little more effort into it. I mean, you did have that Robert Kaplan aspect to you (sexying the unsexy, hyping up the unhypable). But you guys are natural salesmen, right?
Huh?
Ok. Let me try some hard core, un-weak, un-whiny analysis. You don't like the blog. You are not obligated to actually read the blog. So... You see where I'm going with this?
Russia and the US
US is the most dangerous? Okay, but only because of natural economic and military clout. Maybe a more discreet list would be based on motive coupled with real and perceived ability to enact that motive, instead of just impact. Either way, Russia is toward the top, as is the US. A pretty good list.
http://www.realclearworld.com/articles/2009/08/08/us_must_save_ukraine_from_russia_97035.html
A lot of it depends on how
A lot of it depends on how you define 'harm' and 'terrorism', but I think there's a lot of wisdom in the first poster's critique of your last sentence. Part of it seems like the typical leftist elite sneering toward the problem of terrorism that was a reaction to the Bush years, and part of it may be just plain ignorance of the really brutal terrorism in places like Malaysia, Bangladesh, Indonesia, and parts of Africa; because, frankly, elites don't really know or care much about what goes on in these places. However, some of them have been experiencing hundreds, even thousands, of terror attacks a year for some time now, and there's a lot of people that live in these countries (and the fact that, let's face it, most of the terror attacks are from Muslims and that's something that many elites are not comfortable talking about either).
And I just don't buy the inaction argument; once you head down that road you're on a steep slope to neverending guilt for your lack of actions (and as Iraq shows, sometimes our actions just make things worse). So, I would take Europe off the list, although I get that there's a good deal of economic harm they can do (some of which they already did by keeping their interest rates too high in 2007-8).
As for the good ol' US being #1, I'm of two minds about that; I think it's possible that you're right, especially if we're entering an era of resource scarcity. If not, my sense of the country is that we're entering a kind of 1970s phase where there will be real aversion to foreign adventures. Although it's very possible that the real harm will come from us floating so much debt, which could have negative consequences if we soak up most of the buyers for sovereign debt and other countries have trouble floating their own debt.
Greenhouse gases
The "greatest disruption ... to the most people over the next decade or so" will come from climate change resulting from greenhouse gas-induced warming. That would make the U.S. #1, China #2 and the EU #3.
where is north korea?
i wonder what rank would you place north korea on this. So you think venezuela is more dangerous than the north? i don't think so. Kim So ill, even if very ill can threaten the korean peninsula and japan with its taepodong's than with chavez's rants, its support for FARC, its oil or stationing of decrepit russian cruiser moored on its port. Does mere possession of oil than 1 or 2 primitive nuclear weapon like of the north's makes them more dangerous?
I'm not too impressed by this
I'm not too impressed by this list. First of all - a top 10 countries list should contain 10 countries... and not 38.5 countries like this one (Palestine being the half one). Thats nearly 20% of all countries on this planet.
As a second point that has already been mentioned: where is North Korea? sure they play a game which so far harly affects the world... but one can be quite sure that this country will get a new leader within the next ten years... and this could have unpredictable consequences - in one way or another.
Third - if countries like Nigeria or Saudi Arabia make the list because of their oil and potential for conflict then Azerbaijan might als have to be included - after all they still have their issues with Armenia while at the same time being an oil producing country which is not that unsignificant especially for Europe.
Russia more dangerous than
Russia more dangerous than Iran? LOL!
Seems like you're just jealous that Putin's hotter than you.
Finally!
Finally, someone understands. I am jealous of Putin's hotness. I know that if I rode without a shirt it would scare the horses. As for some of the other comments, let's take em one at a time.
Thanks for pointing out that the EU is not a country. I went back and checked on Wikipedia and found out that was actually correct. My bad. No...actually...I knew that. But it was a little unwieldly to call this list the 10 Most Dangerous More or Less Cohesive Quasi-Entities in the World. Rather I was just trying to sketch out a cluster of places capable of causing significant damage with their policies, actions or lack of actions.
North Korea just missed the cut. Obviously it is seriously dangerous both as a potential proliferator and in a regional sense. But I also think it is very weak and that increasingly even those who tolerated it (notably the Chinese) were getting fed up. Thus I think the likelihood of it causing troubles that radiate far beyond its borders is more limited. All such lists are pretty arbitrary as far as cut offs go...see preceding comment....so by all means add it if you feel so inclined.
The comment about the damage caused by Wall Street was actually pretty carefully considered. Obviously capitalism has brought the world many good things...and continues to...and will continue to for a long time to come. But market disruptions of the type we have just been through are hugely damaging for the most vulnerable communities...the downturn will cost millions of lives in terms of those at poverty who are unable to get food, medicine, etc...and it will disrupt hundreds of million in ways that produce real deprivation. Those are the facts of market downturns and have zero to do with whether I am on the left or right.
Some have commented on the absence of Afghanistan on the list. As I have written before, I see Afghanistan as the front porch of a conflict now centered in Pakistan. Want to call the whole thing AfPak...that's fine with me. It's not a country per se, but as you can see from the list, such distinctions are not a big deal with me.
Somalia? Other Stans? There are lots of dangerous places. I was trying to focus on those where the potential for triggering or exacerbating problems had the broadest impact.
Well, I'm all for putting
Well, I'm all for putting George Soros on trial for crimes against humanity; if we're going by your standards, he's got to be at the top of the list of those who've caused the most harm, but I doubt the left elites would buy into that.
Your choice of the US as the
Your choice of the US as the most dangerous country is quite accurate. Whether we as Americans like it or not, our world impact is high - especially economic impact. A few weeks ago I was in a Taxi in DC talking with a driver from Honduras, where our financial crisis really screwed them. The global south is disproportionately affected by this crisis and the worlds most vulnerable people have become even more vulnerable. Just look at how many NGOs were screwed over by the Madoff scheme, and then imagine the communities that they served.
Hugo Chaves
With all due respect, your lack of information about Hugo Chaves is disturbing. He does not represent a danger to Latin America, yet, it is an obstacle to USA's interests. Therefore, for the majority of citizens living in Latin America is a great president, but not for the private groups that runs the government in the US(chiquita brand, Texaco)
You should add to your list US private lobbies that drives US policy againts any kind of democracy standars.
Oh the HORROR!: peoples of a nation PROSPERING from resources!
wow.
The US rolls out WHINSEC & the 'Merida Initiative', the DEA & other militarization into Latin America. Torturing to prevent local unionization or protecting water rights: that's the American Way!
The local Latin American Upper Class is busy selling out their nations' resources for a corporatist agenda...
& their infrastructure is crumbling... desperately needing the infusion of cash from those resources. What will they buy with those goods? NOTHING FOR THE NATION'S PEOPLES!
Sound familiar, America?
...so when those local peoples elect someone like Morales or Chavez... the Americans whose corporations are raping those people (quite literally, WHINSEC graduates -like those currently running Honduras!- rapes, tortures, assassinates, terrorizes... all in the name of facilitating foreign-ownership for Americans! )
the United States shrieks like cut cats: "how DARE those BROWN PEOPLE create a nation state from their national resource wealth!?!"
Why those BROWN PEOPLE offer guns to terrorists!
oh, right. The US has never done THAT!
in fact, the United States is the SINGLE-MOST EFFECTIVE AGENCY for ratcheting up the militarization of the drug trade for its PREFERRED GOONS. Mainly, because the US likes it that way!
Whenever I hear an American sobbing about Latin America's ALBA nations, I'm disgusted at the hypocrisy.
If the US had treated Latin America less like A SLAVE STATE to be beaten like dogs & chattel... if the US didn't treat ALL INDIGENOUS PEOPLES LIKE DIRT... then I might see some validity to their claims.
All I see is that the US is sniveling that what's sauce for the goose is toxic to the gander.
There is a *reason* that China is slapping the US silly in establishing relationships with developing nations holding large natural resources!
Let's be honest: the only reason the American MONEY **allowed** Obama to run?
...is because he's already bought into the American Empire of corruption
...& because the only thing China can't waive in Africa's faces to facilitate foreign-control compliance... is a Black leader!
Like Venezuelan, seems me
Like Venezuelan, seems me interesting your vision...However,what about Nort Korea? Would appreciate to know the reasons by which is not included in this ranking.
regards!