And Yes, the US is not loved in much of the world - esp. not by any Muslim.
9/11/2001 was celebrated world wide.
I don’t have a technical definition but I know one when i see one indulging in rogue behaviour and the USA’s ‘might makes right’ attitude, manifesting itself in its invasion of iraq, the use of drones in pakistan and an Executive claiming the right to execute foreign nationals and its own citizens with same drones I recognise it.
We can add to that waging cyber-warfare and then acting all butt-hurt when other nations do the same thing.
Its an interesting question and the core answer has already been provided - having a nuclear weapon gives you chutzpah. You are a player, a nation to be taken seriously. Don’t mess with you.
The reality that the rest of the world is going “say whut??” and doesn’t give you any respect seems to not matter.
As for biological weapons, they are pointless unless you are going to war and their use achieves an objective. Sheer terror but not much else is gained.
Apart from that, weaponisation of bacteria and viruses is a complex and frustrating puzzle. Too potent and they die out. Too weak and they are combated by medicine and isolation. Sunlight kills them.
Delivery is a whole problem unto itself. How and where? Aerosol? Liquid?
Ebola Zaire is the worst virus and yet it has never broken out into an uncontrollable epidemic despite the hundreds of millions of people who live in Africa.
Any Muslim? Really? Not even Indonesians, Turks, or European Muslims?
If you’re going to use a term, it should probably mean something.
Ok. A rogue nation is one that wages an aggressive war without cause, has death machines roaming the skies of other nations killing at will and launches cyber attacks on other nations while at the same time getting all butt-hurt about others doing the same thing.
Plus a lot of other stuff.
Happy now?
That’s a very specific definition, but at least it is one.
So, the United States is the only rogue nation to have ever existed?
LOL. Where did this statement come from?
“perhaps” Human Action could supply a definition of ‘rogue state’.
By applying tagos’s definition. Is there another nation that meets his/her four criteria?
That’s just it, it’s always been a vague, subjective term that meant different things at different times, since originating in the Clinton administration.
George W. Bush used to the term to refer to the “Axis of Evil”.
I conclude that the term is meaningless, but even if one accepts the various attempts at clarifying it, cited above, the United States does not qualify under any of them.
Thank goodness for that, eh. We wouldn’t want our faith in the beacon of democracy shaken,
Criticize away. The U.S. is far from perfect. But, accurate criticisms are the most effective ones, and inaccurate criticism carries no weight and is indeed counterproductive by virtue of being so easily dismissed as crankery.
Certainly not *any *attempt, though. Noam Chomsky would like a word with you.
To be “rogue” is a comparative – there’s some standard that a “rogue” nation is violating. I would think the obvious is international law, and a rogue nation is the state equivalent of a criminal.
One problem is that it’s almost always the regime that’s rogue. I doubt there are more than a handful of North Koreans who have international ambitions any greater than increasing their caloric intake.
So it really makes more sense to say there are “rogue regimes,” and those are the ones that flaunt international law. I suppose if a rogue regime is democratically elected then there’s some culpability by the nation of a whole. Bush was reelected despite torturing; in some watered down respect that made the US a rogue nation.
What’s Chomsky’s definition?
Does the U.S. qualify under this either? Recall that the invasion of Iraq was allegedly justified under various UN resolutions stemming from the Gulf War, as well as Resolution 1441.
God knows. I’m sure it depends in part around violations of human rights through extra-legal means, but Chomsky’s gig is that the West in general and the US in particular actually warp the framework of international law to serve their own ends, so he would not actually accept my definition.
I don’t think the US would qualify as a rogue regime because of the invasion of Iraq. OTOH, certainly the torture of detainees at Gitmo and other facilities run afoul of international law, so that’s where we get hoist by our own petard. (Obviously our government will deny this, because that’s what governments do. I am making a personal value judgment here – see below.)
My larger point is that “rogue” status is not only a comparative but also a spectrum, and it’s highly situational. It’s kind of hard to define the US broadly as a rogue state when the world order is in large part just a projection of US interests onto the globe. It’s likely foolish to call the entire US international project into doubt because we violate standards under certain conditions. So the appropriate measure has to be reduced to judging specific actions. The Chinese violations of Tibetan rights are rogue actions. The North Koreans violations of treaties to which they are signator are rogue actions. To get from there to “rogue state” involves some sort of algebra (and/or a lot of personal persepctive).
Well, there’s an example of your rougeness right there.
Every other civilised nation would write that date as 11/09/2001.
I would call that an inevitable consequence of the Western nations, for the most part, being the ones who crafted the framework of international law in the first place. A first-mover advantage of sorts. For instance, making wars of conquest illegal is much more beneficial to stable, wealthy nations than to unstable, impoverished ones.
There, again, though, there was a claim of legal justification. Yoo and Bybee maintained that the enhanced interrogation techniques did not, in fact, violate international law. In the absence of international courts with real jurisdiction, there’s no mechanism for hearing and evaluating such claims.
It’s also harder to define a U.S. “regime” when the President and cabinent can change every four years. If using enhanced interrogation techniques from 2002-2009 made the U.S. a rogue state, are we no longer so?
I agree that judging specific actions is far more meaningful than trying to affix pejorative labels like “rogue state”.
virtually all rogue states already have chemical and biological weapons because they are easier.
No, there’s plenty of them around still. The USA distinguishes itself by the huge gap between its self-image and its actions. And this is what disappoints its critics. We expect shithole dictators to be criminals. We expect better from the USA because the ‘shining light on the hill’ thing is something worth living up to. Sadly its just a cynical cloak for the same old ruthless pursuit of short-term self-interest of those who have the power.
You cannot invade other countries on the basis of self-interested lies and you cannot drone-to-death people in allied nations without attracting opprobrium.
I dread to think what will be going down once autonomous drones capable of killing off their own bat are available.
You’ll need to revise your definition, then, or revert to “I know them when I see them.”
I agree that American foreign policy has a lot of room for improvement.
Really, you think …
It’s been worse; the Allen Dulles era of the CIA, for instance.