Talk:Rogue state
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Random points to consider:
- Who first used the term?
- Who still uses it?
- Is it a US-only thing?
Regarding the US-only question, from European media I have made the observation that, even by politicians, the term (German translation: "Schurkenstaaten") is usually used with the adjective "so-called" and in reference to US activities, especially ABM-related.
- It should be noted that the recently-advanced doctrine of pre-emptive action, detailed in Bush's new national security policy stance, specifically lists animosity to the united states as one of the criteria for being a "rogue state". It is worth noting that in the absence of this decision, it would be perfectly possible to consider the U.S. itself a "rogue state".
This article uses a strawman definition for the term rogue state. By equating the US desigination of "rogue" as "anti-US" the article destroys its meaning.
The question is: does "rogue state" merely mean "state opposing US interests"? Or does it have a more universal meaning?
The artful phrase "desired norms" conflates what the US wants with internationally recognized standards of behavior.
A "norm" is supposed to mean "what is good". "Interests" is generally accepted to mean "what a country wants".
Each sovereign state pursues its national interests, at all times. This is to be expected.
Often, a country decides that its own interests are more important than another country's interests and decides to exploit it. People who oppose exploitation on principle tend to oppose this sort of thing.
Rarely, a country decides that the interests of another country are just as important as its own, and decides to help it. For example, a sudden famine or plague might be met with offers of foreign aid. Or a country invaded by a neighbor might be defended by a third party.
I think that we need to expand a bit on what the "norms" of international behavior are, before we can adequately define what "rogue state" means -- unless we are all convinced that the US is abusing the term. --Ed Poor
Ed Poor: Some of the following info might be useful for improving the article:
"Most terrorists are people deeply concerned by what they see as social, political or religous injustice and hypocrisy." (Rogue State, page 30 [1])
William Blum, Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower ISBN 1567511945
Noam Chomsky, Rogue States: The Rule of Force in World Affairs ISBN 0896086119
Like many other terms of political discourse, the term "rogue state" has two uses: a propagandistic use, applied to assorted enemies, and a literal use that applies to states that do not regard themselves as bound by international norms. (Noam Chomsky, Rogue States, page 1 [2])
Excerpt from Bush's June 2002 speech at West Point:
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.
It might be an interesting exercise to see how much each of these bullet points applies to the US itself, as well as to the axis of evil and sponsors of state terrorism.
This link didn't work when I clicked on it. Would someone fix it please?
Anyway, I don't think the White House has dropped the tag. See this September 17, 2002 statement. --Ed Poor
Perhapse we could make a clearer distinction between opposing the adoption of international law (as the US - or at least the current administration - seem to do), and outright violating it.
AFAIK the US was within its legal rights to not sign onto the International Criminal Court, to opt-out of the Missile treaty with the Russians after giving due notice, etc. This could be contrasted with states like North Korea and (formerly) Iraq which flagrantly violated the terms of the agreements they themselves signed on to. -- stewacide 20:22 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)
There is a difference between states who break international law and those who completely refuse to recognise its legitimacy, I would say the second is worse – but this should not be a polemical thread. The concept of the rogue state is a troubled one. There are three main uses for the phrase, one rhetorical, one literal, and one philosophical. In all it seems not to be a particularly useful tool http://www.nucnews.net/nucnews/2000nn/0002nn/000220nn.htm - Jptreen
Contents |
[edit] Stuff
We should address how the term rogue state is used in fiction also, not just about the US's use of it. This also digresses somewhat into talk about the US outside of the scope of rogue state... also, is there anyway to reference when presidents have called what states rogue when? because I don't think Iraq is considered a rogue state by the government now... gren 07:00, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
The United States is not held accountable by the U.N.
There is no global government, thankfully.
This entire article needs to be erased and restarted. Half of the page is reserved for criticisms of the U.S. Iraq War. This does not belong in an article regarding 'rogue states'. Let's consider that the U.N. cannot realistically sanction the U.S.
- Official criticism of any subject covered by Wikipedia should and must be provided, especially when it is made by well-known authors in published articles or books. If there is any praise or counter-criticism, it should be provided too. We're building a wiki not a propaganda part; too bad if there is a truckload of criticism associated to a concept. It's not about balancing ideas, but about a fair representation of reality. If we ever have to weight the pros and cons of a term such as "Rogue State", then a quantitative analysis of the first 100 references returned by google could be considered fair enough. The best reference could be the Vietnam War: protests were widely covered by the medias, and thus, the subject itself is often dwarfed by its criticism. Hugo Dufort 06:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Map
The map is complicated because more than a handful of nations are at odds with America. I tried out the same map in Axis of Evil, Rogue State, and Outposts of Tyranny to illustrate the fact the certain nations can be declared enemies of America for varying reasons and that one nation can be grouped in more than one designation. Furthermore, by showing where the countries are located on a map, the uniformed will be readily able to recognize that although nations may belong to the same classifications this does not mean that these countries are bound together in some organization or alliance as most do not share similar geography, culture, religion and politics. Additionally, the original maps (by another individual) I felt where not perfect as they were. For example, the font was not easy to read (for myself) and the colours used did not properly contrast (using large fills of red and blue alone is very difficult for the eye to focus on). Also, Vancouver Island was indicated as an American possession! If the maps I have created are also found to be lacking, or wrong, perhaps readers can suggest ways to improve it. I should think though that my original idea of one map for three articles was flawed; I will create three separate maps in the future. I ask that TJLive, who evidently has some issues with the maps inform me next time when they delete the map what they find wrong with it, instead of just simply writing revert. In this way, what is perceived as a small ‘revert war’ can come to an end.--RPlunk 20:28, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] POV-Specific and ever-changing list
While most experts seem to agree on definition of a "rogue state", there are considerable differences when it comes to categorizing actual states. What point of view should we consider when building this list? The US, the UN, the EU, France, China? Each country or block would come up with a different list, according to their recent military ventures, to their natural allies and to their geopolitical motivations. Hense, it would be better if we keep the definition of "Rogue State" on this page, and any list of "Rogue States from country X's point of view as of year XXXX" on another linked page. This would guarantee POV validity for this wiki page. Hugo Dufort 06:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Anyway, history of the term (and of related terms in English and other languages) would be welcomes near the top of the article. Hugo Dufort 06:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Weasel words
'Many Middle-Eastern and non-Western states on the contrary would claim the state of Israel is a rogue state. This is due to the occupation of more than 3 million Palestinians, its numerous invasions of neighboring countries, and its policy of annexation and colonization. Nevertheless it has been supported by many Western democracies.'
The above paragraph does not cite any sources, does not conform to a neutral point of view and uses weasel words. The paragraph presents the view that Israel is 'occupying', 'annexing' 'invading' and 'colonising' as if it were fact - the use of the phrase 'this is due to' is extremely dubious (weasel words). Also, the phrase 'Many Middle-Eastern and non-western states' is not backed up, and needs to cite sources.
Also, the phrase 'this is due to the occupation of more than 3 million Palestinians' does not make any sense - how can you occupy 3 million (or any number of) people? (the phrase is poor, but the way Palestinian are threated by Israel should be clear)
The final sentence 'nevertheless it has been supported by many Western democracies' is in need of review, references and substantiation.
I am not pro or anti Israel, I simply feel this paragraph does not conform to Wikipedia's neutral POV and no weasel words policy, and academic quality.
Any input would be greatly appreciated.
OK, the input follows: Generally, this paragraph gives a view that is missing from the so called corporate or mainstream media. It has its own media and you can find an abundance of sources there. Just to name a few: Noam Chomsky, counterpunch.org, commondreams.org, empirenotes.org. Check them out, you will find a lot of facts and of course a lot of "narrative", views, opinions etc. It is very interesting indeed.
Back to the text: The vast majority of Arabs and Muslims and other people regard the current situation of Gaza, the West Bank, the Golan (around 3 million people to fix the number) as occupation, annexion (Golan), ongoing colonisation ("settlements"), and the result of invasions (eg. six day war). And frankly, it is very hard to describe this with other words. I am quite sure that the inhabitants of -say- Ramallah did not want to get under Israeli rule. (Forget about the "disengagement" from Gaza, it is almost completely isolated from the outside world.)
The people of the occupied territories (outside the settlements) are second class citizens, or even worse. They are economically devastated (agricultural lang grabs are well documented, industry has no chance to develop etc), and constantly harrassed by the Israeli Defense Forces and the Air Force (road blocks, incursions, "targeted assassinations"). They have a crippled life and utterly hate the current situation.
Nevetheless, the West supports Israel almost unanimously. I hardly remember any Western government really seriously criticizing Israel, not to mention doing something. Actually, it is pretty hard to criticize a Jewish State in the West, you can get the "anti semite" tag very quickly. But the above criticism is only concerned with what the Israelis are DOING now, and not with their ethnic origin.
[edit] Contradiction -- Pakistan
"In late 1990s U.S. officials considered as "rogue states" North Korea, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Libya."
"Some point to the double standards over Pakistan which has been blatantly breaching nuclear non-proliferation protocols by exporting nuclear weapons technology, yet has not been declared as a "rogue state" by the U.S."
So does the U.S. consider Pakistan a rogue state or not?--Lairor 09:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Based on the wording, it is considered a "rogue state", but not declared as one yet. Consider is informal, while declare is formal. Sigil2 21:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- Based on the sources even in State-sponsored terrorism, Pakistan was listed as a sponsor of terrorism in a 1993 US report and was "considered" to be a rogue state too in the 1990s. Post 9/11, the equations changed and after bullying Pakistan to be an ally in the War on Terrorism, US has since changed its stance and PAK is no longer considered by USA as a rogue state. Hence, the "some point to the double standards..." statement link is correct. Historically, and especially in the current scenario, Pakistan has not been declared as a rogue by USA. Though several are calling for it. Idleguy 04:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- I changed the wording and repeated the part about the alliance in the double standards paragraph. I think this clarifies things enough to remove the contradiction tag. theroachmanTC 20:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] NPOV, reliable sources
Unsurprisingly, someone has felt the need to insert a whole paragraph about Israel into this tiny article:
Various commentators have maintained that Israel is a rogue state. [3] They cite Israel's occupation of Palestine, invasions of neighboring countries, its alleged proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and argue that Israel has a policy of annexation and colonization. [4] However, contrary to other termed 'rogue states', Israel has been consistently supported by the United States. Additionally, Israel's supporters claim that it is a liberal democracy with a human rights record similar to that of other democracies. [5] Israel also participates in friendly relations with Western nations unlike other countries with the rogue state label.
Equally unsurprisingly, even after the wildly POV language was somewhat cleaned up, the "rogue state" claims themselves still are not verifiable, as they do not use any reliable sources, are filled with weasel words, and in any case violate the undue weight provisions of WP:NPOV. Who was being quoted? Oh right, noted political scientist Tarek Kapiel, on the noted political academic journal "islamoneline.net". Turns out he's a "Faculty Lecturer Assistant and Researcher at the Botany Department in Cairo University’s Faculty of Science" - amazingly, he seems to have a "M.Sc. in Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology" - no doubt that makes him an expert on "rogue states". Oh, and there's also the self-appointed Middle East expert "Andy Martin", posting on the blog "Political Gateway". Let's try to make this article encyclopedic, rather than yet another propaganda pamphlet. Jayjg (talk) 18:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
