|
Back to Choike in-depth report Source: The World Guide
Taking stock of ‘threats’ after the Gulf War, the then president of the United States, George Bush Snr, stated that the principal dangers to world peace would be the ‘future Iraqs’. By this he meant the nations of the South that possessed weapons of mass destruction, sponsored terrorism and threatened US interests wherever they were in the world. In 1997, the US Secretary of State of the subsequent (Clinton) administration, Madeleine Albright, declared that the sole objective of the ‘rogue state’ was ‘to destroy the international system’.
The terms ‘pariah state’ and ‘criminal state’ had been in vogue in Washington since the 1970s, but during the Clinton years the term ‘rogue’ was applied to the ‘Iraqs of the future’ (which were now in the present). This stance enabled the US to continue imposing itself as the arbiter of the ‘international community’. The ambiguity of the term ‘rogue’ lends itself to many types of states seen as deviant in some way; whether they are considered ‘criminals’, ‘misguided’ or simply ‘wayward’. If once the term was intended to refer to states that did not adhere to the rule of law, with the passage of time it became a flexible catchphrase employed to demonize actions like organizing campaigns for political support.
The labeling of United Nations member states implies an overriding of the sovereignty of those on the ‘black list’. The pact of sovereignty between member states, implied the egalitarian interaction of nations. But the list of ‘rogue states’ implies that, instead of the UN, it is the US that establishes the ‘guidelines’ (in other words, the framework) for the global agenda. A state is ‘criminal’ if it breaks a law, a ‘boor’ if it violates a moral code, ‘astray’ if it wanders from the herd, and ‘wayward’ if it leaves the desired path. The fact that Washington's list of rogue states includes Cuba, which is not breaking any of the international community's rules, is a clear indication that this state is being judged according to US interests and not those of the rest of the world.
Although the term ‘rogue state’ appears to refer to a country's supposed violations of accepted international norms, it lacks validity under international law. The concept leads to a political culture like that of the United States, which has traditionally seen international relations as a conflict between the forces of Good and Evil (with the US as the principal embodiment of the former). Given the scant analytical foundations and the fact that it is used in a political manner, the term ‘rogue state’ creates contradictions, because states are added to the list of ‘rogues’ selectively, according to Washington's political interests, and not on ‘merits’.
In terms of conduct, the international community is often confronted with the same wayward member. This is the US, a country that has unilaterally withdrawn from the Kyoto Protocol. It also - in solidarity with Israel - walked out of the World Conference against Racism, and ignored the requests of various national courts that have subpoenaed its former secretary of state, Henry Kissinger principally for his part in the downfall of Chile's democratically-elected President Allende in 1973.
In the same vague way that the term ‘rogue state’ is applied to Iran or North Korea, from the perspective of many countries of the world it would apply most aptly to the US. After all, since 1945 the US has attempted to overthrow more than 40 sovereign governments and quash over 30 popular nationalist movements that fought against intolerable regimes. In the process, the US has caused the deaths of millions of people, and condemned millions more to live in despair.
|
