Indian Ocean Region: The Neomedieval Analysis 47Moving more to the lower-lefthand corner we can pinpoint another set
of countries–Kenya, Madagascar, Pakistan, and Comoros. These countries
face some serious internal issues, and any analysis or policy towards these
states must be made with the understanding of the limitations of each
state’s structure and reach. Dealing solely with the state institutions might
be largely insufficient in many cases. The nature of the non-state actors is
also rather violent and many parts of these countries are caught in the
midst of fighting between the state, non-state militias, and, where present,
the outside actors.
Finally we have the countries of Burma, Yemen, and Somalia which
face large structural issues, and where the state is missing in large parts of
the territory, or, in the case of Burma, where the state is dependent on
brute army force. Many parts of the population are alienated from the
ruling elite. Large portions of these state’s territories are plagued with
violence. Even though the situation in Burma might be stabilizing due to
reforms made by the ruling junta, the other countries seem to be caught
more deeply in their quagmire.
It is important to point out that the countries in the same category hold
some important similarities, but we must also be aware of the important
differences, which are caused mainly by geography and demography. For
example, multiethnic Pakistan with over one hundred and fifty million
inhabitants faces different issues than the small island state of Comoros. A
second fundamental issue is the irrelevance of the external ambitions of
states in relation to their internal stability. India is one of the most
important powers affecting the politics of the Indian Ocean region, but at
the same time it faces many internal difficulties. A third observable point
is the lack of connection between the military might of a country and its
actual power. This thought comes from the philosophy of Hannah Arendt^14
and is clearly visible in the case of Burma. The state structure does not
garner any trust from the majority of the population and its rule is based
on violence and not on actual power or identification of the population
with the state. Next there is a worrisome trend linking together the
weakness of a state and its proximity to Chaotic Anarchy. This point
seemingly disqualifies the region, or at least part of it, from acheiving the
Durable Disorder scenario. This might be due to regional instability and
conflicting relations among most of the actors. Finally, the instability of
the region proves to be one of the major reasons for the strong position of
the outside actors in the region. When no inner actor holds enough
(^14) Arendt, O násilí (On Violence).