Rogue State – Com 121 Spring 2010

A Rogue Point of View

admin / March 22, 2010

Clockwise from left: Mohammed Mosaddeq, Dr. Akan Malici, Mohammed Reza Shah Pahlavi, Dr. Akan Malici

Often in United States Foreign Policy, we analyze a one-sided view of international relations. However, it is worthwhile to view motivations from the point of view of the “rogue” state. By doing this, we are better able to form opinions and make foreign policy decisions.

Dr. Akan Malici, Furman University professor of political science, offers an interesting outlook on rogue state actions. Essentially, rogue actions are not always initiated by a motive or expressed threat, but are instead a response to U.S. action or the international environment. Dr. Malici’s article, “Rogue States: Enemies of Our Own Making,” offers a few anecdotal examples. I will summarize the view of Iran.

The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) had been conducting covert operations in Iran since the 1940s. The strength of the operations increased when in 1950 Mohammed Mosaddeq was democratically elected Prime Minister. U.S. Government officials, fearing losing control of the Middle Eastern oil industry and Iran to communism, took part in toppling the Mosaddeq Administration. Mosaddeq was replaced with the Shah, who had a tumultuous tenure as the leader of Iran until the 1979 revolution.

Presently, Iran is located in a region that is not entirely stable. The country has seen its neighbor Iraq overcome by U.S. forces. With this information in mind, Iran’s desire for nuclear capabilities may not be solely offensive, but partially defensive. I am not suggesting that I believe Iran should have nuclear capabilities, or that their desires are completely warranted. I am however indicating a need to review our relationships with rogue nations a little more closely. If our government has in the past or will continue to operate from the viewpoint that Iran is and has always been the sole aggressor, then we may be doomed to repeat diplomatic blunders.

Read and listen to my next post where I discuss the topic of rogue states with Dr. Malici.

Mosaddeq Photo Source, Shah Photo Courtesy of the Associated Press

Rogue Nation #1

admin / February 19, 2010

North Iran — The North Korean Flag (left) and the Iranian Flag

Iran. North Korea. Syria.

These are just a few countries that come to mind when one is called to think of a rogue nation. However, if you were to ask these countries who their top choice is for rogue nation of the globe, the answer may or may not be surprising: The United States of America.

This assertion does not go without merit. A Newsweek article points out, “…for many states the term ‘rogue’ might just as well apply to the United States as to the renegades it seeks to isolate.”

As Samuel Huntington, author of The Clash of Civilizations, notes the United States is viewed as intrusive, exploitative, and hypocritical. The overthrow of the Iraqi government against international objections, possession of nuclear weapons, the support of governments who commit human rights violations against their own citizens, all are reasons some deem the United States as “rogue.”

Several people may dismiss this claim as a sign of jealousy or ill will toward America. They may be right. Yet this opinion, no matter how trivial it may seem, circulates within the global conscience. Huntington quotes one British diplomat as saying, “One reads about the world’s desire for American leadership only in the United States. Everywhere else one reads about American arrogance and unilateralism.”

The use of the term “rogue,” along with several other descriptions, can potentially have the same antagonistic affect on other countries’ policies toward the U.S. as the U.S. rhetoric has on American foreign policy. In either event, the connotation linked with “rogue” can be applied to any country.

Click here for pictures of “rogue” leaders, past and present.

Academic Source: Huntington, Samuel P. “The Lonely Superpower.” American Foreign Policy. Ed. G. John Ikenberry. 4th ed. New York: Longman, n.d. 586-96. Print.

What's in a "Rogue"

admin / February 19, 2010

North Korean leader Kim Jong Il (left) and Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

“The third group are the rogue states- those that not only do not have a part in the international system, but whose very being involves being outside of it and throwing, literally, hand grenades inside in order to destroy it.”

-Secretary of State Madeline Albright

February 1998

Secretary Albright’s description may not assess the current position of all rogue states in the international environment, but it does beg the questions: what is a rogue state? And who are the rogue states?

A search of the United States Department of State website will yield no results for a list of rogue states. Why? That is because a list does not exist. There is not a designated list of rogue states that is determined by the government. Nevertheless, to add some clarity to an abstract definition, Political Scientist K.P. O’Reilly highlights four characteristics of rogue states:

The possession or development of WMDs
Involvement in international terrorism
Posing either a global or regional military threat
Challenging international norms (including human rights violations)

In order to be considered “rogue,” a nation does not have to conform to each trait. All the same, these illustrations are often what are refrenced to depict “rogue states.” The characteristics can potentially create a blanket image that incorporates several entities who do not necessarily share similar ideals. If we are to be an informed society, there must be increased knowledge about the words we use and what these words represent.

My next post will demonstrate how easily applicable the concept of a “rogue state” can be.

Academic Source: O’Reilly, K. P. “Perceiving Rogue States: The Use of the ‘Rogue State’ Concept by U.S. Foreign Policy Elites.” Foreign Policy Analysis (2007): 295-315. Print.

Photo Courtesy of EPA-Corbis (left); Atta Kenare / AFP-Getty Images.

The Path to "Rogue"

admin / February 19, 2010

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad (left) and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

The steps on the path of rogue begin in the 1980s. According to political scientist Michael Klare, this decade marked an evolution where concerns over terrorism “transformed into fears of a third world power acquiring WMDs.” The term’s popularity continued into the 1990s with the collapse of the Soviet Union. Nader Mousavizadeh of Newsweek writes that at this juncture the United States was left to contend with “those states [that were] unwilling to accommodate themselves to the ‘end of history’ and conform to U.S. values.”

Nearly twenty years later we find ourselves at another turning point. With the burgeoning influence of some (former) rogue states, and the rebellious defiance of others, U.S. dominance is questioned by friend and foe alike. The rhetoric is still used to describe countries such as Iran, North Korea, or Syria, but what does this term mean? If this term evokes some sense of emotion or call to action, how does that recollection affect policymakers and citizens?

The term “rogue states” is often used in political discourse to describe countries that defy international norms, or possess or seek weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). However, many media sources pay little attention to the context of the phrase, failing to explore its history or ambiguous meaning. Politicians and pundits use the term stopping short of giving actual debate to our use of the term and the impact it has. Considering the amount of air time and print space “rogue states” consume, I think it is only fitting that the concept be further explored.

Read my next post to learn more about the common applications of the term.

Academic Source: Klare, Michael. Rogue States and Nuclear Outlaws: America’s Search for a New Foreign Policy. New York: Hill and Wang, 1995. Print.

Photo courtesy of Louai Beshara / AFP / Getty.