Introduction
The concept of rogue states in international politics has grown out of the diversity of actions that are taken by different states as far as the formulation and implementation of foreign policy are concerned. The concept is critical in comprehending the role that is played by different states in promoting international peace and security. It is argued that the concept of rogue states is promoted by the United States as a sole power in the world as a means of securing the interests of the United States in the global order. There are two different bases on which the concept of rogue states can be explored as promoted by the United States. The first argument is based on a subjective perspective, where the United States is seen as the sole promoter of this concept subject to the pursuance of its policies that promote dominance in the global order. The second argument is more objective as it compares the legal policy frameworks of different states as far as international politics are concerned. The United States is not seen as the sole promoter of the concept under this argument, thus the action of the United States as far as the concept is concerned works in favor of international peace and security. This paper explores the two arguments. The paper deploys a high level of analytical scrutiny in the analysis and justification of the two arguments.
Conceptualization of rogue states from a dual perspective
Rogue states as a subjective concept
The most critical question that ought to be posed when talking about rogue states concerns the characteristics that are used in classifying states. It is critical to note that the concept of rogue states has emanated out of the need to promote international peace and security in what is called the global order. In the promotion of international peace and security, there is an emphasis on the cooperative role of states through the development and enforcement of legal frameworks and the pursuance of courses that are in line with the promotion of global peace. However, as expounded by the different theoretical concepts, the task of promoting unity and peace in the global scene is marked by competing nationalisms. This makes it complex. An example is the current nuclear conflict between the United States and North Korea, on the one hand, and the US and Iran, on the other hand. Realists view the competition between states in international politics as a negative force as far as promoting global peace is concerned. Therefore, the first argument that brings out the concept of rogue states as an issue that is solely promoted by the United States is based on realism. The United States is the most powerful state in the world (Miles, 2012).
Regarding the issue of competing nationalism, the United States has to promote its interests as a way of safeguarding its status and interests in international politics, and not the interests of the entire globe per se. The question that needs to be answered at this juncture is whether global peace and security can be attained by default without the lead role of any state in fostering the course of promoting order in international politics. So far, the height of competition in international politics is quite high and is promoted by several factors. These include natural resource status, social and cultural factors, like variations in religion between states in the world, and the differences in the form of governance, like capitalism and democracy, on the one hand, and authoritarianism, on the other hand. Therefore, global order cannot be easily attained amidst the present global political scene whose level of volatility keeps rising each day. Attainment of objective responsibility by states for the sake of promoting international peace through cooperation cannot be easily realized. This justifies the role that is assumed by the United States as a leading state in the world to intervene and ensure that global peace and order are maintained at all levels of intra- and interstate interactions. The objective of intervening in diverse political developments is to ensure that global peace is safeguarded to promote an environment that encourages cooperation and the collective advancement of states in the world (Saunders, 2006).
However, what has come out of the assumed role of the United States as the sole promoter of the concept of rogue states is that there are no internationally agreed modalities of comprehending the issue of rogue states in international law and other statutes that govern interactions among states. The mechanisms of limiting and controlling the behavior and actions of states are demeaned as far as international law recognizes the need to develop international cooperation. This leaves the United States as a sole country in enforcing direct actions on the states that violate the attributes of cooperation in fostering international peace. Whether international peace or the interests of the United States are safeguarded out of the unilateral actions that are taken is a question that remains open to criticism from the scholars of international politics (Saunders, 2006).
Rogue states as an objective concept
Idealists view the concept of international peace and security from a broader perspective through rationalization of the actions and roles that are played by states in maintaining and promoting international peace and security. The existing legal frameworks that govern the cooperation of states were developed from the conflicting nature of states. This was notable in the three key political developments in the world: the First World War, the Second World War, and the Cold War. The powers to set up order and cooperation are founded in integration and international organizations that govern the integration of states in the world. Realists see the cooperation of states from an objective point of view by arguing that states cooperate to advance their interests in international relations. The realist view is based on the fact that states are common actors in international politics, and they act on the ‘brother’s keeper’ basis when it comes to identification and solving of the problems that face them. Security is one of the problems that faced states from the pre-World Wars period into the post-Cold War period (Silverstone, 2007). Most of the efforts of international organizations are therefore based on ensuring that there is cooperation between and among states as a way of promoting regional and global peace. Just like other states and international organizations, the United States is also involved in the collective efforts of ensuring that a peaceful environment is safeguarded and sustained in the world (May 2011).
As the key respondents to the issue of international security, international organizations are increasingly faced with several problems limiting their capacity to identify the states that engage in the issues that jeopardize the promotion of international peace. An example is the lack of a standing army for the United Nations organization and its dependency on the donations of military personnel and aid as far as the response to different security situations across the globe is concerned. As a country that is endowed with resources, the United States comes in as the main supporter of the United Nations in terms of offering military and technical support to the United Nations organization and other regional bodies in fostering international peace. So far, cooperation between the United States and individual states and international bodies has been seen. An example is the cooperation between the Arab League and the United States in ousting Moammar Gadhafi, who was identified as a rogue leader.
According to Saunders (2006), the question of ability is quite essential in the explanation and justification of the concept of rogue states. The United States remains to be one of the critical actors in the issues of establishing and sustaining global peace and security through the identification of the possible threats to global peace, like rogue states. The role of the United States serves the world right because it is the only country that can help the world through direct support and intervention in the issues of peace and security in international politics. Weak states prevail in the global political scene, and the security of these states relies on countries like the United States and international bodies to protect them through taming of states that pose a danger to the weak states. Harm cannot be easily avoided, but the ultimate goal of sustaining peace and security is the core pillar of the concept of rogue states (Saunders, 2006).
Analysis and justification of the concept of rogue states from the two perspectives
Rose (2011) observed that there are diverse sets of connotations in the explanation of the concept of rogue states by scholars of international relations. Rather than based on bringing out the variation between normal states and rogue states, a substantial number of scholars focus on interests as a factor for explaining the factors that define the nature of actions of states in international relations. This perspective has a lot of aspects of realism since it absolves itself from the internal factors of states, states that brutalize their citizenry. In short, rogue states refer to the states that choose to pursue policies that are not in line with the course of promoting peace and security in the interplay of relations between states in the world. However, there are no particular behaviors or characteristics that have been assigned to the concept. States display uncooperative behaviors in the course of promoting their interests in one way or another. This implies that, in one way or another, each state in the world can be classified as a rogue state (Rose, 2011).
What is used to justify the rogue behavior of states by the proponents of the concept is that several states engage in extreme behaviors. These are behaviors that compromise totally with the security situations in other countries, like the attack of Kuwait by Iraq (Devetak, Burke & George, 2007). Such actions can put to jeopardy the lives of the citizenry of a given nation and increase the security threats that are posed to other nations in the world. Getting an outside country to directly intervene in such situations is, in most cases, rare. This brings about the issue of rogue characterization by the United States as a factor that enhances direct actions on a country that poses a threat to other states (Rose, 2011). The United States has not been vivid in actions that entail salvaging states that are marked by internal governance issues resulting in a brutal course for the livelihood of the citizens occupying such states. An example that can be given in this case is the prevalence of several failed states in the world, like Somalia, whose citizens are increasingly subjected to brutality that comes from the inability of the government to sustain national order. In this sense, it can be argued that the global security problem is not looked at objectively since the United States only focuses on the areas or regions where its interests are at stake (Miles, 2012).
According to Rose (2011), the subjective perspective of rogue states seems to hold a lot of weight in as far as the definition and workability of the concept are concerned. An observation of trends of cooperation in the world reveals that the cooperation between the United States and other countries, especially countries from Asia and the Far East keeps deteriorating due to the classification of these countries as rogue states by the United States. As far as there is an array of factors that can be used in classifying states as a rogue, the United States and the world at large comprehend the term rogue from the competing ideologies. The United States State Department keeps updating a list of what it terms as rogue states. It argues that these countries are the main sponsors of terrorism. This is taken up by the supporters of the United States, who out of the influence of the United States, take up the list and impose sanctions on the countries enlisted by the USA. The power of the United States is quite resounding in classifying countries as rogue states (Miles, 2012).
At this point, it can be said that the realistic conception of rogue states is quite elaborate in explaining the contemporary developments in international peace and security in the world. The United States goes ahead to impose sanctions, most of which constitute actions that halt the development of other states through violation of the rights of the citizens of these states rather than promoting security (May 2011). An example that can be given here is the classification of Iraq and Afghanistan as rogue states and the subsequent launch of attacks in these countries, an action that has resulted in the complete deterioration of security in these countries and undermining international peace and security. Other bodies that are supposed to play the role of balancing the interaction between states in international relations, like the United Nations, remain to be secondary in making responsive decisions about rogue states and rogue leaders in the world. The trend in global politics denotes an increase in threats to the interests and dominance of the United States in global politics, and so is the increase in the course of the United States to classify states as rogue and, supposedly, taking unilateral and harmful actions against these states (May 2011). This can be justified from recent actions, like the classification of Moammar Gadhafi as a rogue leader and the subsequent launch of military action against his government resulting in the ousting of Gadhafi from power.
References
Devetak, R., Burke, A., & George, J. (2007). Introduction to international relations: Australian perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
May, L. (2011). Global justice and due process. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Miles, A. (2012). US foreign policy and the rogue state doctrine. New York, NY: Routledge.
Rose, J. (2011). Defining the rogue state: A definitional comparative analysis within the rationalist, culturalist, and structural traditions. Journal of Political Inquiry, 4, 1-36.
Saunders, E. N. (2006). Setting boundaries: Can international society exclude “rogue states”? International Studies Review, 8(1), 23-53.
Silverstone, S. A. (2007). Preventive war and American democracy. New York, NY: Routldge.