It's been argued that failing states (e.g. Pakistan) are potentially more dangerous to world security (safety from terrorism and international crime) than those that have actually failed (e.g. Somalia).

In his new book, Weak Links, scholar Stewart Patrick concludes that "a middle-ranking group of weak -- but not yet failing -- states (e.g., Pakistan, Kenya) may offer more long-term advantages to terrorists than either anarchic zones or strong states." (See "The Brutal Truth.") Terrorists need infrastructure, too. The 9/11 attacks, after all, were directed from Afghanistan, but were financed and coordinated in Europe and more stable parts of the Muslim world, and were carried out mostly by citizens of Saudi Arabia. Al Qaeda is a largely middle-class organization.

A similar pattern plays out in the world of transnational crime. Take the three-cornered drug market that links cocaine growers in Latin America, traffickers in West Africa, and users in Europe. The narcotraffickers have found the failed states of West Africa, with their unpatrolled ports and corrupt and undermanned security forces, to be perfect transshipment points for their product. Drugs are dumped out of propeller planes or unloaded from ships just off the coast of Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, or Sierra Leone, and then broken into smaller parcels to be shipped north. But the criminal gangs operate not out of these Hobbesian spaces but from Ghana and Senegal -- countries with reliable banking systems, excellent air connections, pleasant hotels, and innumerable opportunities for money laundering. The relationship is analogous to that between Afghanistan, whose wild spaces offer al Qaeda a theater of operations, and Pakistan, whose freewheeling urban centers provide jihadists with a home base.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/06/20/think_again_failed_states

Four of the ten ASEAN member nations appear in the 60 failed or endangered nations in the 2011 Failed States Index 2011, and all of them except Singapore are listed as "Borderline" or "In Danger".

If partially failed/failing states are a menace to world security and stability, how dangerous will a whole consortium of them be?

I like your theory. You point out quite correctly how Al Qaeda operatives need money and infrastructure. They are also not without education, sometimes expensive western education, which explodes (no pun intended) the common myth that poverty and lack of educational prospects cause terrorism. Indeed one of the rent-a-jihaddists found in Syria was apparently a doctor on 'sabbatical' from the UK.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2194466/What-makes-doctor-terrorist.html

Asean does possess a mixed bag of Buddhist, Muslim and Christian populations as well as many other tribal or ethnic divisions which could make for localized strife given the right catalyst, but on the whole I suspect much of the region is too laid back to really get into wholesale slaughter, furthermore we surely have enough ex-SAS stationed in Pattaya to stop things getting too out of hand.

Finally, if I accept ASEAN ticks all the boxes so to speak the question surely is why hasn't this happened before?

One-third of the countries in the world (60/177) are listed as 'failed'. These include in our area Laos (sleepy but slowly waking up) and the Philippines (corrupt but not doing too badly). Even Bhutan (not in ASEAN) is on the list. I think perhaps the "scholars" who compiled the list should be re-employed on something more useful.

ASEAN is a loose organisation of local countries, drawn together for mutual interests.

There is no interference by ASEAN in the cultural or religious beliefs of the individual countries, escepting only the law-breaking activities of groups such as Abu Sayyaf.

I would say that ASEAN is a good exemplar for the way international relations should be, as against the unacceptable level of interference in national affairs exemplified by the EU, or the militaristic aggression and interference in other sovereign states, as shown by NATO in places such as Libya.

Disband NATO, the EU and African Union, set up instead trading organisations such as ASEAN (but not the WTO, which is biased solely to benefit US trade), and the world would be a whole lot better.

... furthermore we surely have enough ex-SAS stationed in Pattaya to stop things getting too out of hand.

One-third of the countries in the world (60/177) are listed as 'failed'.

Yes, it's a bit comprehensive, isn't it. Though it doesn't actually say they've all failed already, but that they show signs that it could happen.

Still, I agree with you. Laos might be a satrapy of China now and about to be bled dry, but it does appear to be making progress in both quality of life and infrastructure. Bhutan may have trouble with its ethnic Nepalese, but it, too, seems to be going ahead.

I looked at the Failed States Index because I'd been reading an article on the possible imminent collapse of Pakistan, a country of 180 million with an infrastructure designed for about a quarter of that number, and they're really not coping with what they've got plus the highest birth rate in South Asia.