Jump to content

Rogue state

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Zorrobot (talk | contribs) at 17:47, 27 May 2012 (r2.7.3) (Robot: Modifying sv:Skurkstat). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

For the 2000 book by William Blum, see Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower.

Template:Globalize/US

"Rogue states" as defined by the United States.[citation needed]
  • States currently considered "Rogue States" by the USA:
  1.  Cuba[1]
  2.  Iran[1]
  3.  Sudan[1]
  4.  Syria[1]
  5.  North Korea[2]
  • States formerly considered "Rogue States" by the USA:
  1. Afghanistan
  2. Iraq
  3.  Libya
  4.  Serbia and Montenegro[3]

Rogue state is a controversial term applied by some international theorists to states they consider threatening to the world's peace. This means meeting certain criteria, such as being ruled by authoritarian regimes that severely restrict human rights, sponsor terrorism, and seek to proliferate weapons of mass destruction.[4] The term is used most by the United States, though it has been applied by other countries.[5]

Rogue states can also be differentiated from 'pariah states' such as Burma (Myanmar) and Zimbabwe who allegedly abuse the human rights of their populations while not being considered a tangible threat beyond their own borders, although the terms have been used interchangeably.

A common presumption applied to rogue states is that they do not necessarily behave rationally or in their own best interests. In political theory it is generally believed that a stable nation, ruled by a leadership that is subject to broad scrutiny (though not necessarily democratic scrutiny), will tend to act in its own best interests and will not take actions that are directly contrary to its own interests, particularly not to its own survival. Rogue states, however, may not be subject to this assumption and, as such, relations with them may be more complicated and unpredictable.

United States usage

As early as July 1985, President Reagan had asserted that "we are not going to tolerate … attacks from outlaw states by the strangest collection of misfits, loony tunes, and squalid criminals since the advent of the Third Reich," but it fell to the Clinton administration to elaborate this concept.[6] In the 1994 issue of Foreign Affairs, National Security Advisor Anthony Lake claimed "the reality of recalcitrant and outlaw states that not only choose to remain outside the family [of democratic nations] but also assault its basic values.[6] Lake labeled five regimes as "rogue states": North Korea, Cuba, Iraq, Iran and Libya.[6] In theory, at least, to be classified as a rogue, a state had to commit four transgressions: pursue weapons of mass destruction, support terrorism, severely abuse its own citizens, and stridently criticize the United States.[6] However, it was argued that while four the nations met all these transgressions,[6] Cuba, though still known for severely abusing its citizens and its strident criticism of the United States,[6] no longer met all the transgressions required for a rogue state and was put on the list solely because of the political influence of the American Cuban community and specifically that of the Cuban American National Foundation.[6]

Four other nations, Serbia and Montenegro, Syria, Sudan and Afghanistan, would also be later treated in manners similar to the rogue states as well.[6] The United States employed several tools to isolate and punish rogue states.[6] Tough unilateral economic sanctions, often at congressional behest, were imposed on or tightened against Iran, Libya, Cuba, Sudan, and Afghanistan.[6] Air-power was used massively against Serbia in 1999 and selectively against Iraq for years after the conclusion of the Gulf War in 1991.[6] Cruise missiles were fired at Afghanistan and Sudan in retaliation for terrorist attacks against U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in September 1998.[6] Syria, which was seen as an important player in Israeli-Palestinian peace talks,[6] would get less harsh treatment.[6]

The Central Intelligence Agency supported a variety of covert actions designed to depose Saddam Hussein, while Congress approved the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998 aimed at providing Iraqi opposition groups with increased financial assistance.[6] Several leading Republicans who would occupy high positions in the George W. Bush administration publicly urged President Clinton in February 1998 to recognize the Iraqi National Congress (INC) as the provisional government of Iraq.[6] Some of these critics, including Paul Wolfowitz and Robert Zoellick, hinted that U.S. ground forces might ultimately be required to help the INC oust Saddam. In all of these anti-rogue efforts, however, Washington found it exceedingly difficult to persuade other nations (with the partial exception of Britain) to support its policies of ostracism and punishment.[6]

The U.S. invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 removed Afghanistan from the list, and Iraq followed suit after the U.S.-led 2003 invasion of Iraq. Libya was removed from the list after achieving success through diplomacy. Relations with Libya also became more mutual following the eight month Libyan civil war, which resulted in the National Transitional Council ousting Muammar Gaddafi from power. In October of 2000, Slobodan Milosevic, the Serbian president who played a leading role in the instigating the Yugoslav Wars,[7] was ousted from power and the US officially reopened it's embassy in the Serbia and Montenegro.[7] The final sanctions against the nation were lifted in January of 2001[8] and in 2006, Serbia and Montenegro officially dissolved into two separate states. In the last six months of the Clinton administration, former United States Secretary of State Madeleine Albright announced that the term "rogue state" would be abolished in June 2000, in favour of "states of concern,"[9] as three of the rogue states (Libya, Iran and North Korea) no longer met the four transgressions which defined a rogue state.[6]

However the Bush administration returned to using a similar term. The concept of "rogue states" was replaced by the Bush administration with the "Axis of Evil" concept (gathering Iraq, Iran, and North Korea). U.S. President George W. Bush first spoke of this "Axis of Evil" during his January 2002 State of the Union Address.[10] More terms, such as Beyond the Axis of Evil and Outposts of Tyranny, would follow suit.

As the U.S. government remains the most active proponent of the "rogue state" expression, the term has received much criticism from those who disagree with U.S. foreign policy. Critics charge that "rogue state" merely means any state that is generally hostile to the U.S., or even one that opposes the U.S. without necessarily posing a wider threat.[11][12] Some others, such as author William Blum, have written that the term is also applicable to the U.S. and Israel. Both the concepts of rogue states and the "Axis of Evil" have been criticized by certain scholars, including philosopher Jacques Derrida and linguist Noam Chomsky, who considered it more or less a justification of imperialism and a useful word for propaganda.[13]

In Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower, William Blum claims that the United States of America, because of its foreign policy, is itself a rogue state.

Usage in other countries

While the term is used in the media of many countries, it has only been officially used by the United Kingdom[14] and Ukraine[15]. However, the expression has been criticised by France,[16] Russia and China.

See also

References

  1. ^ a b c d State Sponsors of Terrorism
  2. ^ Clinton Announces New North Korea Sanctions : NPR
  3. ^ Politics: Who are today's rogue nations?, Inter Press Service, May 20, 2001
  4. ^ Rogue States?, Arms Control and Dr. A. Q. Khan.
  5. ^ Minnerop, Petra. (2002). "Rogue States – State Sponsors of Terrorism?". German Law Journal, 9.
  6. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r http://www.americanforeignrelations.com/O-W/Post-cold-War-Policy-Isolating-and-punishing-rogue-states.html#ixzz1km2m5X7A
  7. ^ a b http://www.kuna.net.kw/ArticleDetails.aspx?language=en&id=1116959
  8. ^ http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2801%2905713-0/fulltext
  9. ^ WAMU 88.5 American University Radio, Washington D.C., Broadcast on 19 June, 10-11 a.m. / Daily Press Briefing, Monday, 19 June 2000, Briefer: Richard Boucher, Spokesman Department 5-10, "States of Concern" versus "Rogue states"
  10. ^ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/transcripts/sou012902.htm
  11. ^ Pakistan, a rogue state unpunished, Sydney Morning Herald, February 13, 2004
  12. ^ PAKISTAN: How Washington helped create a nuclear 'rogue state', Green left online, November 17, 1993
  13. ^ http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/25/books/review/25freedland.html
  14. ^ Tony Blair: "The benefits delivered by the European Union and its forerunners have been enormous. The network of interdependent has helped countries across the continent develop stable and prosperous democracies. One example is the Former Yugoslavia. In 1991, shortly after the dissolution of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, two of the former republics Serbia and Montenegro retained the federation and was subsequently renamed as the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. However after the United Nations refused to recognize its status as a nation and recommended the new Yugoslavia to apply for new membership, which the country did not pursue. During the Yugoslav Wars the country was declared by some European countries as a rogue state. Following the Kosovo War, Yugoslavia reapplied for UN membership and formally dissolved the federation in 2003. It makes it much harder that ever before in European history for any other country to be-come a rogue state." Britain's role in Europe, November 23, 2001
  15. ^ Ukraine keeps a keen eye on the situation around the ABM Treaty. We believe that possible actions of a party to the ABM Treaty in order to decrease the threat of a missile attack from a rogue state should not contradict its treaty obligations. We call upon the United States of America and Russia to find a mutually acceptable solution to this problem, to avoid a negative effect on START I and START II.; Final Record of the 845 plenary meeting, Conference on Disarmament, CD/PV.845, 9.3.2000.
  16. ^ France Doubts "Rogue State" Danger Warrants Missile Shield, AP on SpaceDaily, May 11, 2000

Further reading

  • Allman, T. D. (2004). Rogue State: America at War with the World. Nation Books. ISBN 978-1-56025-562-8
  • Blum, William. (2006). Rogue state: a guide to the world's only superpower. Zed Books. ISBN 978-1-84277-827-2
  • Chomsky, Noam. (2000). Rogue States: The Rule of Force in World Affairs. Pluto Press. ISBN 978-0-7453-1708-3
  • Derrida, Jacques. (2005). Rogues: Two Essays on Reason. Stanford University Press. ISBN 978-0-8047-4951-0 (Translated by Pascale-Anne Brault, Michael Naas)
  • Litwak, Robert. (2000). Rogue states and U.S. foreign policy: containment after the Cold War. Woodrow Wilson Center Press. ISBN 978-0-943875-98-9
  • Pendleton, Don. (2002). Rogue State. Harlequin Books. ISBN 978-0-373-61945-0
  • Rotberg, Robert. (2007). Worst of the worst: dealing with repressive and rogue nations. World Peace Foundation. ISBN 978-0-8157-7567-6
  • Thompson, Janna. (2002). Is There Such a Thing as a Rogue State? Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics
  • Triplett, William. (2004). Rogue state: how a nuclear North Korea threatens America. Regnery Publishing. ISBN 978-0-89526-068-0
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rogue_state&oldid=494648160"