BY NATE HAKEN

Photo by Emad El Byed on Unsplash

For nearly two decades, the Fragile States Index has tracked the shifting trends in global stability, offering insight into the underlying drivers of current challenges and risks. Over this period, the world has seen mounting pressures on states and the international system generally. These include the 2007-2008 food riots that swept through dozens of countries, signaling the vulnerabilities of global supply chains, the 2009 financial crisis that shook economies and deepened inequalities, and a doubling of global refugees in the last ten years. Climate change has amplified fragility by fueling migration and resource conflicts, while the COVID-19 pandemic exposed and widened cracks in governance and health systems worldwide. Political upheavals like the January 6 insurrection in the United States revealed the fragility of even long-established democracies, while conflicts in Gaza and Ukraine underscore a weakening of the post-World War II rules-based order. This year’s Fragile States Index captures these cascading stresses, and explores how the cumulative impact of economic shocks, climate crises, pandemics, and conflict are reshaping societal values, ideas of national security, and even the international system itself.

Following World War II, the United States led the design and evolution of the international order with the aim of managing global fragility and international conflict. This effort was typically characterized by multilateralism, the intentional reinforcing of international norms, and a focus on collective security. It also facilitated global trade under the theory that economic interdependence creates enough shared prosperity and win-win incentives to encourage widespread buy-in. Foreign development assistance, although de minimis as a percentage of the US federal budget was a vital tool of soft power to reinforce stability and American influence around the world. Certainly, there were exceptions in the application of these principles; powerful countries benefited disproportionately. Political dynamics shaped their implementation. And internal strife in countries like the Democratic Republic of Congo and Myanmar raised questions as to how well-suited the rules-based order was to effectively address such challenges. But the bipartisan and broad-based consensus was enthusiastic about supporting this international order, despite the resources and commitment required to sustain it.

Eventually, the internal contradictions came to a head, with growing inequality, environmental degradation, and technology-driven consolidation of wealth and power, leading to a rise in populist nationalism, protectionism, and xenophobia worldwide. While on one level this may appear to be a natural counter-reaction to the failures of globalism, this backlash is no remedy but rather fuels a self-reinforcing cycle of instability and division both at home and abroad.

Beneath this backlash lies a deeper, more pervasive force: uncertainty. Advances in artificial intelligence, automation, and biotechnology have upended traditional labor markets and redefined industries, leaving many workers feeling unmoored in a rapidly shifting economy. The conduct of war has also evolved in ways that traditional defense structures struggle to address, with asymmetric attacks, cyber warfare, and autonomous drone swarms scrambling the balance of power and making conflicts more unpredictable. Meanwhile, the sheer velocity of information—both real and fabricated—has made it increasingly difficult to discern truth from manipulation, further eroding trust in institutions, whether they be in Indonesia, Brazil, or Mexico. In this volatile landscape, many have sought refuge in nationalism, protectionism, and authoritarianism, believing that a retreat from globalism offers stability in an unpredictable world. Yet rather than resolving the uncertainty, these responses have often deepened it, exacerbating economic fragmentation, diplomatic rifts, and new forms of conflict.

This shift, marked by weakened alliances, diminished global restraint, and new power alignments-has created a geopolitical landscape fraught with instability, amplifying fragility in regions like West Africa, the Sahel, the Middle East, and even in powerful countries previously considered stable. This year’s Fragile States Index provides a compelling lens to examine these dynamics. In this boarder context, the following report looks at climate pressures in Somalia, populism in Niger and India, migration in Tunisia, fragmentation in Burkina Faso, as well as conflict in Sudan, South Sudan, Mozambique, and elsewhere.

Stresses on alliances and regional fragmentation have significantly strained traditional unions, such as ECOWAS and NATO, leaving power vacuums that are often filled by alternative actors. In the Sahel, ECOWAS has struggled to respond to a wave of coups and growing authoritarianism, with countries like Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger withdrawing from regional frameworks and aligning with non-traditional partners, including private military contractors such as the Wagner Group. Similarly, NATO’s cohesion has been tested by internal divisions, shifting priorities, and challenges in addressing security threats emanating from Russia. In this context, non-state actors, extremist groups, and opportunistic foreign powers have been emboldened, exacerbating instability.

The global rise of populism and authoritarianism poses a direct challenge to the values underpinning the post-World War II rules-based order, fostering instability and fragmentation. Populist leaders often exploit societal divisions and grievances to consolidate power, such as the scapegoating of migrants and other minority groups. Authoritarian regimes that prioritize control and power consolidation over collective security and human rights not only weaken multilateral frameworks but also embolden illiberal actors worldwide, creating a self-reinforcing cycle of diminished trust in institutions and escalating instability.

While the world has never been devoid of conflict, the erosion of norms, ideals, and principles of proportionality and restraint has marked a dangerous shift, even among those countries who previously purported to uphold them. Tactically, the use of indiscriminate violence or the targeting of civilian infrastructure may offer short-term advantages, such as shifting the balance of power or deterring further aggression by projecting dominance. However, the second-order effects of these strategies are profoundly destabilizing. They not only intensify the collective and individual suffering and trauma, but also undermine international norms, embolden other actors to adopt similar tactics, and fuel cycles of retaliation, displacement, and deepening fragility. This normalization of unrestrained violence risks creating a world where the long-term costs of conflict spiral, leaving even the most powerful states vulnerable to the consequences of a fractured global order.

This dynamic of eroding norms and emboldened illiberal actors does not exist in isolation; its ripple effects are deeply interconnected with global systems, exacerbating fragility in the world’s most vulnerable regions, even far beyond the immediate zones of violence. The cascading effects of displacement, food insecurity, and resource competition often leaves peripheral regions to shoulder the heaviest burdens of global instability.
The war in Ukraine, for example, has disrupted global grain and fertilizer supplies, driving up food prices and worsening food insecurity in already vulnerable regions like the Sahel and the Horn of Africa. Similarly, conflicts in Sudan and the broader Sahel, authoritarianism in Venezuela, and natural disasters amplified by climate change in the Caribbean have triggered mass displacement, forcing millions to migrate across borders or become internally displaced, placing immense strain on neighboring states and host communities with limited capacity to absorb these populations. These migration patterns often intensify social tensions, exacerbate resource competition, and overwhelm public services, creating fertile ground for extremism and intercommunal violence. Meanwhile, the destabilizing effects hamper economic recovery efforts in both affected regions and beyond, compounding the challenges faced by peripheral states already struggling to maintain stability and governance.

The 2024 Fragile States Index underscores the complex and interconnected nature of global fragility, illustrating how shocks and systemic vulnerabilities are reshaping the contours of governance, security, and resilience worldwide. From the erosion of international norms to the rise of populism, authoritarianism, and regional fragmentation, the challenges of our time demand a reimagining of how the international community addresses instability. While the traditional rules-based order provided a framework for collective security and economic cooperation, its fractures have exposed its limitations in addressing the deeper, systemic drivers of fragility.

To move forward, a new paradigm must emerge—one that fosters resilience at both the local and international levels. This means prioritizing community-led governance, ensuring equitable access to resources, and empowering local actors to mitigate and respond to crises. Simultaneously, international frameworks must evolve to complement these local efforts by promoting decentralized, adaptive solutions to shared global challenges like climate change, displacement, and resource scarcity. A resilient world is not one that relies solely on top-down norms and multilateral agreements, but one that invests in the capacity of communities to withstand shocks, builds representative institutions that bridge divides, and enables cooperation across regions and sectors. By integrating local agency with global coordination, the international community can chart a path that addresses the root causes of fragility while creating sustainable systems of governance and security. Without this shift, the ripple effects of today’s crises will only deepen the fractures of tomorrow’s world.