Australian independent Federal MP Andrew Wilkie recently made the claim that the “Republic of Nauru is virtually a failed state”. ABC Fact Check took a closer look and determined that such claims about Nauru are exaggerated.

Whilst there are serious concerns about the sustainability of Nauru’s economic growth and the commitment of the government to human rights protections and the rule of law, it is clear that Nauru does have a government that is in control and its economy is functioning.

On October 5, 2015, independent federal MP Andrew Wilkie responded to what he called the “never-ending madness” on Nauru, stating that “the Republic of Nauru is virtually a failed state”.

Experts considered Somalia in the 1990s to be a failed state and some politicians have argued that third party countries can legally intervene into the affairs of ‘failed states’.

But as difficult as things may be on Nauru, are they really that bad?

ABC Fact Check contacted Wilkie to ask him what he understood to be the criteria for a “failed state” and why he believed Nauru was “virtually” one.

He said that “there is no single and inarguable definition” but suggested that “a failed state can be defined as one where the institutions of government are absent or ineffective, there is lawlessness and the basic needs of the community are not met”.

Among other things, he asserts that Nauru experiences poor governance, has an ineffective justice system and an economy “entirely propped up by foreign aid”.

Wilkie says he was “careful” to use the word “virtually” as “Nauru obviously does not meet the technical definition of failed state”.

In this context, Fact Check takes “virtually” to mean “almost”, “nearly” or “close to”.

Fact Check asked Immigration Minister Peter Dutton, Foreign Minister Julie Bishop and Shadow Foreign Minister Tanya Plibersek whether they believed that Nauru was “virtually a failed state”.

None would comment on the issue.

Fact Check has been told by a number of experts in Australia and internationally that failed state is not a formal term used in international law, but rather a political concept subject to varying interpretations.

Hannah Woolaver, a senior lecturer in Public International Law from the University of Cape Town, South Africa, says that “there is no generally accepted view of what constitutes a failed state although it’s usually meant to indicate some lack of effective government control in a country”.

She says that “the only instance where there has has been widespread agreement is that of Somalia in the 1990s, where there was a complete absence of government for an extended period of time”.

In 1994, then US vice-president Al Gore helped to establish a “state failure taskforce”, which was to study and predict political crises in states.

Jack Goldstone of George Mason University was a member of the task force and says that “the criteria for a failed state were so vague that we changed the title of our project to ‘Political Instability Task Force’.”

In one of its reports, the task force noted that foreign policy observers “generally attribute state failure to conditions such as civil strife, government breakdown, and economic privation”.

For the purpose of its studies, it found a country to be a “failed state” if there were at least 1000 deaths from conflict with government authorities, with a minimum of 100 deaths per year.

Professor Goldstone’s personal view is that “a failed state has a central government that is unable to enforce law and order within its own territory, and thus subject to widespread lawlessness, rebellion, and civil war” but adds that this definition has “no legal status”.

Tiffiany Howard of the University of Nevada, Las Vegas suggests that failed states “are unable to control their borders, their economy has deteriorated, they are involved in bitter violent struggles, there is no evidence of a functioning physical infrastructure, and their political institutions lack any form of legitimacy”.

Daniel Thürer, Professor of International Law at the University of Zurich, suggested in an academic article for a Red Cross journal that the failed state description is commonly used for “states in which institutions and law and order have totally or partially collapsed under the pressure and amidst the confusion of erupting violence, yet which subsist as a ghostly presence on the world map”.

While there is no formally defined meaning, the weight of opinion consulted by Fact Check suggests that for a state to be failed the government must be almost completely ineffective or nonexistent, the economy in free-fall and services unavailable.

Is the situation on the ground in Nauru really that chaotic?

Nauru has had a turbulent political history since Europeans first took control in the nineteenth century, passing between Germany and Britain and then occupied by Japan.

After the Second World War, Australia administered it as a United Nations Trust Territory until independence in 1968.

On paper, Nauru is a beacon of freedom in the South Pacific: it is a parliamentary democracy with a written constitution that theoretically protects the “fundamental rights and freedoms” of Nauruan citizens.

At least every three years, all adults over 20 have to vote in elections for the 19 members of parliament.

In reality, with no political parties, Nauru’s government can be unstable – in 1996 there were three different presidents in three months.

More recently, some opposition politicians were expelled from the parliament and public servants dismissed because they spoke to international media about interference by the government in the court system.

In June 2015, three opposition politicians were arrested following a protest outside parliament, a development that attracted attention in Australia and New Zealand.

“We have been concerned. We want an update on the prosecution of the opposition members of parliament and we want to ensure that this is all done openly and transparently and in a way that is accountable to the international community,” Foreign Minister Julie Bishop told ABC Radio on July 10, 2015.

According to a submission to an Australian Senate Committee by Geoffrey Eames QC, formerly the chief justice of Nauru, in recent times the Nauru government has committed “a series of flagrant breaches of the rule of law”.

Eames told the committee that in January 2014, Nauru’s resident magistrate Peter Law (an Australian), was arrested and deported because he made orders against the wishes of a Nauruan minister.

From his base in Melbourne, Eames opposed the expulsion and as a result had his visa cancelled. He could not return to Nauru to continue as chief justice.

Eames says that while people can debate whether Nauru is a failed state, “what is certain is that its citizens and residents do not have the benefit of good government”.

In September 2015, New Zealand suspended its aid contributions to Nauru’s justice sector.

Nauru’s main source of income since independence has been the mining and export of phosphate.

Mining revenue had been reinvested in the Nauru Phosphate Royalties Trust, which amassed around $1 billion in investments around the world.

Mismanagement and excessive government spending led to the loss of most of this wealth.

With dwindling phosphate reserves, by the beginning of the 2000s, Nauru was poor, in significant debt and relied on foreign aid to survive.

But then came Australia and the offshore processing of asylum seekers.

Nauru’s economy is now performing relatively well – it has experienced economic growth every year since 2011 and based on recent figures (2012) its GDP per capita is now higher than that of Thailand, Malaysia or Indonesia.

The Asian Development Bank (ADB) says that the Nauru economy has been “boosted by strong aid flows, higher phosphate and fishing revenues and the reopening of the Australian regional processing centre (RPC) for asylum centres”.

By September 2013, the RPC employed 600 Nauruans, and a boost to related industries such as construction means that the ADB now believes that Nauru is “likely at, or approaching, full employment”.

The Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) has estimated that the RPC will generate around $115 million in revenue for Nauru in 2015-16.

The country is also reforming its economy. The ADB says that Nauru has “run balanced budgets and significantly reduced government debt as well as introducing reforms in the financial sector, state owned enterprises restructuring, utilities, transport infrastructure and governance reforms”.

There are also plans to establish a “Nauru International Trust Fund” with the help of Australia and Taiwan, intended to save some of the income from the RPC for future needs once the immediate boost is gone.

Nevertheless, DFAT says that “Nauru will continue to be dependent on external assistance over the long term”.

Nauru had operated as a cash economy since the early 2000s, but in May 2015, Australia’s Bendigo Bank opened a community bank agency branch.

The bank says that around 3000 accounts have been opened in the months since then.

Nauru’s economy lacks diversity and could suffer a major downturn if the Australian government stops housing asylum seekers there.

But as of today, Nauru’s economy has a degree of health that would not be seen in a failed state.

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) says that despite an improving economy “poor health and education outcomes persist”.

What is clear is there are at least basic health, education and essential services in place.

Nauru has two hospitals and a dental clinic.

There are ten schools (primary and secondary), staffed by local and expatriate teachers.

DFAT says Australia’s support has helped to achieve 100 per cent enrolment in primary school in 2013-14.

There is a desalination plant to supply clean water to the population and internet access and mobile phones are available.

Nauru has a police force in place, that has training agreements with the Australian Federal Police and the Fiji Police.

The verdict? There is no universal agreement on what exactly a failed state is, but experts consulted by Fact Check refer to a lack of government control or working economy and institutions.

There are serious concerns about the sustainability of Nauru’s economic growth and the commitment of the government to human rights protections and the rule of law.

However, it is plain that Nauru does have a government that is in control and its economy is functioning.

The situation on the ground in Nauru does not come close to that of a failed state.

- ABC