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.