Origin of the term "Rogue State"

[n4292936]

This has made the rounds in an ADFA lecture series and I thought some of you may be interested. I think it is derived from "'Politics of the Great Powers" which is used as an undergrad text


As far as I can determine, references were made to 'rogue states' in the US press in the
early 1990s. But the term began to make its way into official lexicon in 1994 when it was
used by Clinton National Security Adviser Anthony Lake in an article in the journal 'Foreign
Affairs', in March/April 1994 entitled “Confronting Backlash States” Lake argued that these
'backlash states', because they ‘bucked a worldwide trend toward democracy, free
markets and civilized conduct, posed a threat to U.S. interests and ideals'. He further
argued that 'the United States had to devise strategies to contain and eventually transform
these ‘rogue regimes’, naming Iran and Iraq as particularly troublesome.'

As is always the case with 'the echo chamber' effect in Washington, the term 'rogue states'
came to be used on a regular basis by members of Congress, too. Then in June 2000, the
State Department announced its decision to expunge the term ‘rogue state’ from the US
foreign policy lexicon in favour of the more diplomatically sounding ‘states of concern’
explaining that the ‘rogue state’ category had already outlived its usefulness. Suddenly
there were no 'rogue states' anymore. Announced on 19 June, this semantic shift coincided
with Washington's decision to ease sanctions on North Korea to permit trade and
investment with the communist former 'rogue state' for the first time in a half century.

But at the time, presidential candidate Bush continued to use the term ‘rogue state’ to refer
to North Korea, Iran, and Iraq. Then came the ‘axis of evil’ state of the union speech in
January 2002, which upgraded the rogue-state strategy to the evil-state strategy.
Incidentally, the speech writer for this speech originally wrote ‘axis of hatred’ but Bush,
changed the word 'hatred' to ‘evil’.

Finally, in the September 2002, USS National Security Strategy: rogue states were
officially described in the following terms:
“In the 1990s we witnessed the emergence of a small number of rogue states that, while
different in important ways, share a number of attributes. These states:
* brutalize their own people and squander their national resources for the personal gain of
the rulers;
* display no regard for international law, threaten their neighbors, and callously violate
international treaties to which they are party;
* are determined to acquire weapons of mass destruction, along with other advanced
military technology, to be used as threats or offensively to achieve the aggressive designs
of these regimes;
* sponsor terrorism around the globe; and
* reject basic human values and hate the United States and everything for which it
stands.”

I hope this clarifies things.

[mobster]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v323/viewimage/axis600.gif

[n4292936]

and yet...

[achilles]

Finally, in the September 2002, USS National Security Strategy: rogue states were
officially described in the following terms:
“In the 1990s we witnessed the emergence of a small number of rogue states that, while
different in important ways, share a number of attributes. These states:
* brutalize their own people and squander their national resources for the personal gain of
the rulers;
* display no regard for international law, threaten their neighbors, and callously violate
international treaties to which they are party;
* are determined to acquire weapons of mass destruction, along with other advanced
military technology, to be used as threats or offensively to achieve the aggressive designs
of these regimes;
* sponsor terrorism around the globe; and
* reject basic human values and hate the United States and everything for which it
stands.”

I hope this clarifies things.

Interesting topic, in fact i was thinking about posting a couple of days ago the following: "What is a rogue state?" but then i thought that it must have been posted somehow, somewhere so i dropped it. I am glad you brought it up.
Defining a 'rogue state' is not easy and can be very tricky even for those who manipulate the term according to their convenience. The definition you provided (USS National Security Strategy 2002) is problematic in the following sense:

Leaving aside the "brutalize their own people and squander their national resources for the personal gain of
the rulers" part, which would be suitable for countries like North Korea or Turkmenistan, the remaining definition can well describe the United States.
1)Disregarding the international law: and lets start from the most recent example i.e. war in Iraq, where in the name of the 'war on terror' the invasion took place unilateraly, without the approval of the UN Security council.
2)Threaten neighbours: The US has a historical record on that, although it is wrong to restrict the definition only to neighbours. The US has threatened both neighbours (a number of Latin countries) and definitely non-neighbours (examples are redundant).
3)Violate international treaties: almost every single country has been engaged in a war and violated the 1949 Geneva Convention regarding the treatement of the war prisoners; recent example: the events of Abu Ghraib.
4)WMD? The US was the first to build and use Nuclear weapons and currently has the most advanced military apparatus that has ever been built. I strongly doubt that this apparatus has been constructed only for purposes of 'fighting communism', 'self-defense' and 'war on terror'. It is really moot which American choices have been offensive and which defensive.
5)Sponsoring terror? Supporting dictatoral regimes politically, financially and militarily, at least for me, is sponsoring terror. Examples: supporting dictator Suharto in Indonesia:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB128/index.htm

supporting Pinochet in Chile:

http://www.globalpolicy.org/intljustice/wanted/2003/0416reg.htm

not to mention that Saddam Hussein during the 80's had been America's 'kind of guy' according to official lips.

6)Rejecting basic human values stems from all the above and needs no further comments. Now, defining a 'rogue state' from the side of America, only, is unfair and leads to myopic definitions such as the one provided in this thread. My point is not to start a flame war but to attack those who craft such definitions. Definitions which can very easily be used against them, eventually: given that definition the US is a rogue state.

I quote Chomsky:
"The concept "rogue state" is highly nuanced. Thus Cuba qualifies as a leading "rogue state" because of its alleged involvement in international terrorism, but the U.S. does not fall into the category despite its terrorist attacks against Cuba for close to 40 years, apparently continuing through last summer according to important investigative reporting of the Miami Herald, which failed to reach the national press (here; it did in Europe). Cuba was a "rogue state" when its military forces were in Angola, backing the government against South African attacks supported by the U.S. South Africa, in contrast, was not a rogue state then, nor during the Reagan years, when it caused over $60 billion in damage and 1.5 million deaths in neighboring states according to a UN Commission, not to speak of some events at home—and with ample U.S./UK support. The same exemption applies to Indonesia and many others."

Let me try and make a humble attempt to give a different definition that, perhaps, is more convenient and resolves the paradox/contradiction:

A rogue state is a non-democratic, undeveloped/developing country which develops WMD, suppreses its people, supports international terrorism and hence jeopardizes international security.

[American Patriot]

Chomsky should stick to linguistics

[achilles]

Chomsky should stick to linguistics

Well, lol maybe, but some people say that his theories on linguistics are a bit 'outdated' ;)

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Now, defining a 'rogue state' from the side of America, only, is unfair and leads to myopic definitions such as the one provided in this thread.

:| There's a loaded statement.

America's definition would pretty much mirror that of any Western nation. Who does the "west" consider rogue that America does not? The lists are one in the same. So you are saying that we must consider belief systems outside of traditional Western values then?

We are to adopt their values and beliefs before we can point a finger at something and have the temerity to call it bad? I think not.

The mentality of moral relativism is a recipe for disaster and social chaos. Not all belief systems can be accommodated. Some are in direct conflict and cannot co-exist.

How can you enforce laws when you must accommodate the murderers' wishes? How can you imprison the bank robber, when that will not take his point of view into account? Is it not myopic, unfair and oppressive of us to enforce our beliefs on these people? Who do we think we are?

While quick to point out that the US may have violated it's own rules (in principle if not in terms of the intended goals) - you are also saying, in essence, that there should be no rules. So violating them should not be a problem in the first place...right?

Who's definition of "rogue state' shall we use? Who's definition of "bad" should we use? Now be careful what you come up with, because no matter who's definition you pick, you're going to wind up with a narrow minded, discriminatory, one-sided conclusion.

You must pick sides. You cannot incorporate all belief systems into your moral code. To do so is to have no moral code. So what criteria do you use to pick sides? Can we agree that liberty and prosperity for the people are "good"?

If so, it seems to me, you should pick a side, a nation, who's social, economic, and military policies result in the most prosperity for its people. For a lot of people, the US is a good example of this. Not only is the US prosperous, it has provided security for most "Western" nations for the past 50 years. Security which their social modes could not provide, due to their insufficient defense spending (which continues today).

So be aware, if you were to pick nearly any Western nation as your guide, that you are also picking the US to some extent. Because it has largely been America's prosperity that has paid for their defense & preservation of their society.

Of course you could pick some of the nations that hate Western society. But then you'd be stuck with their icky social codes to defend. :lol: So let's hear it!

[achilles]

[quote=achilles]
Now, defining a 'rogue state' from the side of America, only, is unfair and leads to myopic definitions such as the one provided in this thread.

:| There's a loaded statement.

I was talking about a seriously flawed definition and the selectiveness of the US when it comes to labelling states as 'rogue' and you ended up talking about what US has done for the rest of the western world (support which i aknowledge and appreciate nevertheless). I am afraid i see no link between what i ve posted and your conclusions.


Who does the "west" consider rogue that America does not? The lists are one in the same.
No its the other way around. America's list of rogue states is much longer than that of the rest of the world. Apart from that, the distinctive element of the American approach is that it considers 'rogue' states, rogue enough to star a war. This is not the case for Europe apart from a small minority of countries. (UK, Aznar's Spain). Rogue states in Europe are rogue for themselves and not rogue because they are supposed to be threatening us, or because we seek an excuse in order to intervene militarily. What you are saying is just part of the US parlance seeking to drag everybody else into hunting down 'rogue' states and fight terror or 'secure world peace', all of which serve by large the American interests.


So you are saying that we must consider belief systems outside of traditional Western values then?

Where did that come from? :roll:


The mentality of moral relativism is a recipe for disaster and social chaos.
How contradictory to America's moral relativism when it comes to naming countries as 'rogue' at different points in time. Iraq used to be 'your kind of guy' but later he became a ruthless dictator who should be kicked out.


Not all belief systems can be accommodated. Some are in direct conflict and cannot co-exist.

Oh really? You forgot to quote Hitler on that. Try 'Mein Kampf'...


How can you enforce laws when you must accommodate the murderers' wishes? How can you imprison the bank robber, when that will not take his point of view into account? Is it not myopic, unfair and oppressive of us to enforce our beliefs on these people? Who do we think we are?

While quick to point out that the US may have violated it's own rules (in principle if not in terms of the intended goals) - you are also saying, in essence, that there should be no rules. So violating them should not be a problem in the first place...right?

I dont know how you reach those conslusions. You have either NOT understood what i said or you are trying to distort it. Anyway, what i implied is that THERE ARE RULES and there must be generally accepted rules, to the largest possible extent, when we are labelling states as 'rogue'. Currently, a rogue state is whichever country is baptized as being so by the US. Do you see any rules in this pattern?


Who's definition of "rogue state' shall we use? Who's definition of "bad" should we use? Now be careful what you come up with, because no matter who's definition you pick, you're going to wind up with a narrow minded, discriminatory, one-sided conclusion.



You must pick sides. You cannot incorporate all belief systems into your moral code. To do so is to have no moral code. So what criteria do you use to pick sides? Can we agree that liberty and prosperity for the people are "good"?

I MUST pick sides? Says who? You? I avoid picking sides as much as i can in order to remain objective (as much as i can). The thing is that not picking sides means that i accept the possibility of two or more moral codes to CO-EXIST and even exchange some of their elements. Now the universal moral values of 'liberty' and 'prosperity' are great...the problem is that they are irrelevant within the context we are discussing and are definitely not part of the moral ground upon which the American definition of 'rogue states' is based upon. Your world of 'black and white' has nothing to do with prosperity and definitely does not promote libery.


For a lot of people, the US is a good example of this. Not only is the US prosperous, it has provided security for most "Western" nations for the past 50 years. Security which their social modes could not provide, due to their insufficient defense spending (which continues today).

I never doubted that. I still dont see the link....


So be aware, if you were to pick nearly any Western nation as your guide, that you are also picking the US to some extent. Because it has largely been America's prosperity that has paid for their defense & preservation of their society.

Of course you could pick some of the nations that hate Western society. But then you'd be stuck with their icky social codes to defend. :lol: So let's hear it!

If the word 'pick' were not so frequent in your post we would have bigger and better grounds to talk on...ok let me make it clear to you...the fact that i reject America's definition of 'rogue' and the practice based on it, does not mean that i dont appreciate its contribution to the rest of the world in some specific aspects. I think you are incoherent with this point. You are trying to link irrelevant things or at least things that i never said or implied.

"I d be stuck with their icky social codes to defend"....IF i were to pick...and I COULD pick...and GIVEN THAT I MUST PICK...thats a whole lot of assumptions and meaningless hypothesis. We have a different view of the world...you can go on with your 'side-picking'...

[achilles]

Read also between your quotations....i m still not quite sure how the 'quote' option works

Ok...think i fixed it

[2Sheds_Jackson]

If the word 'pick' were not so frequent in your post we would have bigger and better grounds to talk on...ok let me make it clear to you...the fact that i reject America's definition of 'rogue' and the practice based on it, does not mean that i don’t appreciate its contribution to the rest of the world in some specific aspects. I think you are incoherent with this point. You are trying to link irrelevant things or at least things that i never said or implied.

"I d be stuck with their icky social codes to defend"....IF i were to pick...and I COULD pick...and GIVEN THAT I MUST PICK...that’s a whole lot of assumptions and meaningless hypothesis. We have a different views of the world...you can go on with your 'side-picking'...

Me? "Side picking"? Never! :lol: It was you, in your post, who first invoked the evil of side picking.


Now, defining a 'rogue state' from the side of America, only, is unfair and leads to myopic definitions such as the one provided in this thread.

So you have acknowledged that there are sides - personally as an American, I'm comfortable with the American side as it is.

Maybe I have misinterpreted your post. Are you suggesting that some entity outside of the US government should determine what we consider to be a rogue state? Do you expect every nation to have the same list, to share the same values?

I find that odd - as if we were all somehow pursuing the same goals. I would not expect the government of North Korea or Iran to share the US definition of what a rogue state is.

Since "list" is generated by each government, and each government is a reflection of the values of the nation's people (in a democracy) I see this as a value or moral argument. That's how I got into that stuff.

And despite your assertions to the contrary - you are not completely impartial or objective. You can't be. As proof I cite your line about Hitler in your post. Clearly you don't like Hitler, which means you've chosen to disagree with his ethics. So your opinions are just as tainted with emotion and bias as anybody else’s.

BTW - I wasn't implying anything about anybody being grateful/ungrateful etc. about America's help. The point I was trying to make was that many of the very liberal states in Europe have only been afforded that opportunity because of the knuckle dragging, trailer park living, TV dinner eating Americans that they turn their noses up at. If they had to finance their own military at adult levels, they wouldn't have money to send their pets to college.

[OB Kenobi]

Incidentally, the speech writer for this speech originally wrote ‘axis of hatred’ but Bush, changed the word 'hatred' to ‘evil’.

That speech writer was later fired. Not sure why, possibly because he had alot of bad ideas. :) He also co-wrote books with Richard Perle, who was one of the chief architects of the Iraq invasion plan, and who backed Ahmed Chalabi, who turned out to be an Iranian double-agent (according to the Bush administration). I sometimes wonder if Bush really is not as much of an incompentant crook as he appears to be, and maybe he was misled by Neocons like this, and Donald Rumsfeld. When you have all these people telling you "this is the way it is, we have solid intel on it," as president you tend to believe them.

[achilles]

Maybe I have misinterpreted your post. Are you suggesting that some entity outside of the US government should determine what we consider to be a rogue state? Do you expect every nation to have the same list, to share the same values?

In fact you have, all i did was to criticise the American definition of a 'rogue state', and the practice that follows based on that definition. As anyone can see, using that definition is like calling the US a 'rogue-state'.What i suggest is that America could be more consistent regarding which states and leaders considers to be rogue.


And despite your assertions to the contrary - you are not completely impartial or objective. You can't be. As proof I cite your line about Hitler in your post. Clearly you don't like Hitler, which means you've chosen to disagree with his ethics. So your opinions are just as tainted with emotion and bias as anybody else’s.

Of course i am not and cannot possibly be completely impartial or objective there is no need to proove that because i never claimed it. Hitler's worldview reflects nothing of what i stand for but i cannot see how this corroborates the fact that i am 'as tained with emotion and bias as anybody else'. I choose to disagree with his ethics but i can coexist with people who adopt it.



BTW - I wasn't implying anything about anybody being grateful/ungrateful etc. about America's help. The point I was trying to make was that many of the very liberal states in Europe have only been afforded that opportunity because of the knuckle dragging, trailer park living, TV dinner eating Americans that they turn their noses up at. If they had to finance their own military at adult levels, they wouldn't have money to send their pets to college.

Ok i see your point. In general i believe that some of your claims were not clear and definitely some of them were contradicting. Like:

"Now be careful what you come up with, because no matter who's definition you pick, you're going to wind up with a narrow minded, discriminatory, one-sided conclusion.
You must pick sides. You cannot incorporate all belief systems into your moral code. To do so is to have no moral code. So what criteria do you use to pick sides? Can we agree that liberty and prosperity for the people are "good"? "

You say be careful otherwise you ll end up with a one-sided conclusion, and your next sentence begins with 'you must pick sides'. ;) i.e. avoid being one sided but eventually i MUST choose a side. (otherwise i have no ethical code)! lol cmon man....i am sure you had something in mind but it didnt come out coherently...anyway hope i made myself clear this time.